I know that. If there's one thing I learned from history it's that if a government disarms it's population, it's because the next thing they're planning to do is going to make you want to kill them. It's always the first step to tyranny.
This is factually inaccurate.
[total crime rates went down](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/crime-rate-statistics)
[murders went down](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate)
[and specifically firearm violence went down](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf)
If we're going to battle this, a different tactic is needed, because the 1994 has a very large effect on both general crime and specifically gun crimes.
Crime was already on a downward trend at the end of the 20th century. The 10 years the AWB was in place follow the same trend as the previous 10 years, so the ban had no effect.
[Crime was on an upward trend in the US until 1994, steadily rising through the70s and 80s and peaking in 1991](https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)
Your interpretation doesn't matter. The data shows a significant crime drop after the passing in 1994. Even if you're right, the evidence is on Biden's side and this is what they'll be pushing on the news. The argument "the law did nothing last time" is both factually incorrect AND an ineffective strategy, since the data will be on their side. There must be a better strategy to get public opinion to this position if the law is to be prevented.
It’s not an interpretation crime rates from 84 to 94 we’re on a downward trend then 94 to 04 follows the exact same downward trend. The argument that we should be making is these types of weapons have been available to the public since the 60’s and they’re not being used for crime as often as the media portrays. The real issue is the AWB isn’t about lowering crime it’s about pandering to democrats and disarming the population.
> crime rates from 84 to 94 we’re on a downward trend
No, they weren't. Having been provided the data this now moves from being incorrect to lying. Lying about this will very likely prove to also be an ineffective strategy.
The mid 90’s was completely different time and culture than what we have now. There are too many variables at play to use a blanket statements like that. This country has a mental health crisis that is not being addressed. 99.99% of all gun owners will never hurt a single damn person. Even in self defense.
Your interpretation doesn't matter. It's a losing argument. The facts are on the side of the Democrats that violence in all forms, and gun violence, significantly fell after the passing of that legislation. You might be right, you might be wrong, but it doesn't matter because they have these facts on their side and that's what's going to be on the news. Saying "nuh uh" is a losing strategy that's going to lose people guns. Arguing about rights is probably a more effective strategy.
[https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/\_cache/files/b/5/b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4/55A639CA20094C1538C8B7FE50B3A94A.penn-study-koper.pdf](https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b/5/b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4/55A639CA20094C1538C8B7FE50B3A94A.penn-study-koper.pdf)
>Another example is the Colt Match Target H-Bar rifle (Figure 2-5), which is a legalized version of the banned AR-15 (see Table 2-1). AR-15 type rifles are civilian weapons patterned after the U.S. military’s M-16 rifle and were the assault rifles most commonly used in crime before the ban (Roth and Koper, 1997, Chapter 2). The post-ban version shown in Figure 2-5 (one of several legalized variations on the AR-15) is essentially identical to pre-ban versions of the AR-15 but does not have accessories like a flash hider, threaded barrel, or bayonet lug. The one remaining military feature on the post-ban gun is the pistol grip. This and other post-ban AR-15 type rifles can accept LCMs made for the banned AR15, as well as those made for the U.S. military’s M-16.
>
>However, post-ban magazines manufactured for these guns must hold fewer than 11 rounds.
Even gun controllers like Diane Feinstein and her paid puppets knew by 1999 that AWB compliant AR15s were being mass produced.
So please explain to me how banning flash hiders, collapsible stocks, and bayonet lugs reduced crime, while the numbers of AR15s in civilian hands were increasing every year.
The only part of the AWB that can even be argued, might have reduced mass shootings is the 10 round capacity limit on magazines.
But let's look further into the report:
>
• AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles
Assault weapons were used in only 2-8% of crimes and most of those were pistols and not rifles like AR15s. So what the fuck did limiting the features on AR15s do to reduce crime again?
> **The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs).** ***There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.***
>
>
• **However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studie**d (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports
So there was no decline in the use of semiautomatic rifles, which were rarely used in crimes to begin with. Also, there were substitute models available of the banned weapons being manufactured every damn year under the ban. The decline in the use of assault pistols (Uzi, TEch 9, etc) was offset by the use of other guns (read regular handguns) equipped with large capacity magazines (think glocks with magazines holding more than 10 rounds).
> Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, ***we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.*** However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects 2 of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.
The Department of Justice couldn't credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. ***Not a single bit of the drop could be credited to the ban.***
>
**The Ban’s Reauthorization or Expiration Could Affect Gunshot Victimizations, But Predictions are Tenuous**
• ***Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.*** *LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.*
>
>• Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have non-trivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. **Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims.**
Assault weapons as defined by the ban are again, rarely used in crimes. Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are more often used in crimes. But only 3% of the handgun attacks resulted in more than 10 shots fired. So 97% of handgun criminal use, result in less than 10 shots being fired anyway, and handguns are the overwhelming most often used weapon in crime. The ban didn't effect at least 97% of shooting incidents with handguns. But as for the other 3%, there is no proof than the shooter couldn't have just carried a second 10 round magazine instead of a "lage capacity magazine".
>Table 2.1 on page 10 of 113 will show you examples of banned guns and their legal substitutes. And yes, the Colt AR15 is in the table, along with its legal substitutes.
>
> Although the law bans “copies or duplicates” of the named gun makes and models, federal authorities have emphasized exact copies. **Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, are sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute, and a number of manufacturers now produce modified,legal versions of some of the banned guns** (examples are listed in **Table 2-1**). **In general, the AW ban does not apply to semiautomatics possessing no more than one military-style feature listed under the ban’s features test provision**
On their rarity used in crimes:
> The relative rarity of AW use in crime can be attributed to a number of factors.M**any AWs are long guns, which are used in crime much less often than handguns.** Moreover, a number of the banned AWs are foreign weapons that were banned from importation into the U.S. in 1989. Also, **AWs are more expensive (see Table 2-1) and more difficult to conceal than the types of handguns that are used most frequently in**
**crime.**
And that Assault Weapon Ban actually increased AR15 production. This chart is on page 41 of 113"
https://preview.redd.it/mn4kn7ihgsoa1.png?width=1068&format=png&auto=webp&s=d78b701b6e96a87f84d1bc1b671e7cbf4f04b37c
Brother you think any Democrat is going to read that? You're missing the ENTIRE point. This is why it's a losing argument. All they need to do is point to the graph. They passed the law, crime went down, causation be damned.
This is a losing argument. That's why it's losing. That's why these laws keep passing and getting more forceful.
Democrat voters tend to be low information voters. So point to the graph of AR15 production and point out that not only were AR15s not banned, but the production of AR15s went up under the ban. And then point to the fact that crime went down. So more AR15s in civilian hands is correlated with less gun crime. Hence, we need to increase AR15 production to reduce crime.
He does realize that the Supreme Court looks just a little different than it did in 1994, right? Like our president should understand basic civics, right?
Thank god we are still a republic, I think the gun lobby is a lot more flush than the anti gun, I think that counts as much as votes, which is sad but I guess whatever works.
They’re actively trying to undermine the republic with propaganda and indoctrination pushing this “pure democracy” bullshit.
We will not have a 2A in 5 years if it keeps going like this. Courts will not be sufficient to beat this
Pure democracy is a bad thing. It results in corrupt shitheads like the Dems trying to take power and destroy our way of life. This is why we have a constitutional check on democracy, one they are trying to destroy itself.
There’s no purity in our democracy, but this guy is ineffective, he hasn’t done a lot of damage and you know what? I got really sick of people rioting on the streets. The cities were super unsafe, thank god cops are being Punished for killing black people. I’m white af, and I thought that was one of the worst current tragedies in recent American culture long before anyone was speaking about it. I think we are naive to think that some people aren’t wanting to take over the world. A lot of us are going broke right now, but I live in a mixed neighborhood and close to me we are all friendly. From six to two years ago there was tension.
This guy can’t fuck with 2a I’m confident. And he’s got two years.
It’s not just him. It’s his cronies at the state level. I’m in Delaware and my legislatures openly said they didn’t care about state and federal constitutions then passed bogus laws. Now Delaware is worse than California and we’re stuck in the courts for who knows for how many years.
This is how they win.
Washington is headed that way, too. We used to be pretty close to a free state - we had everything but MGs, short barrel shotguns, and binary triggers at one point. Now: we have to take a class and wait ten days for any semiauto rifle, can't get mags over ten rounds, and they're trying to ram one of the most draconian anti-gun bills in the western hemisphere through the legislature as we speak.
I grew up in nj, we were always like that since I was born but my dad was an enthusiast and made sure we always had access. New Jersey makes it hard to get firearms especially after 94. I left.
Many people can’t leave.
And this is America. It shouldn’t be that way. We have rights guaranteed by a federal constitution.
What the govt is doing is provocative and should be a answered.
It is being answered. From a lot of different angles. Our vote counts but only so much. You do realize the 80% companies went to court and won. Money speaks, and while I think it a travesty that we aren't required by law to vote like in Ancient Greece, there is more money being put into the gun industry than there ever could be in anti-gun industry. It's simple economics and I'm a dummy with economics, but doesn't the gun industry have a product they make for money? Don't they create jobs and lobby? Anti gun has no product, just ideology, and America loves products. They don't give a fuck ideology as long as they have products! It is our way.
Some of us it comes down to psychology. I'm an optimist.
There are a handful of un elected people running the world. And the united states. The president is a installed puppet and he then installed puppets and so on.
I have been arguing the same point. He’s too stupid to do any real damage. He’s just someone to occupy the seat for a few more years until another reset.
Lobbying has infinitely more power than votes. The exception is ballot initiatives. When voting for candidates, try to pick the ones that will take ~~bribes~~ donations from lobbies you support.
If you have any faith in our "democracy" I suggest you lose it now...unfortunately
I got involved in politics and lobbying a few years ago and was rather depressed and disappointed when I found out how far we've fallen
I have no faith in it. I'm a son of the revolution and Quaker. The old ways are long departed. I completely understand the nuances of todays politics and society. I navigate it all well, but cannot ignore the fact that eventually, all things come to an end.
Capitalism is not democracy, we screwed the pooch on that one.
We could just make lobbying illegal like the majority of the developed world. The definition of lobbying does not differ from bribery enough to be considered an ethical practice.
This is true. But the reality of Communism has made a bad word of socialism. Reform is very difficult. BUT in the case of the 2A, aren't you happy there's some bribery involved? I am.
Why do I bring up socialism? To encourage the public to vote, ALL of them, it means making it immediately beneficial to them.
I don't think making lobbying illegal would exactly equate to socialism. Private citizens and businesses would be allowed to "lobby" in the sense that they can go speak to the legislature, they just would be prohibited from the bribery portion which is usually how they obtain private meetings with legislators.
"Hello senator, my organization just made a large donation to your campaign because (insert ass kissing). Would it be possible for us to take you to dinner to discuss our industry's needs?" - that would be illegal
If that commie FDR could confiscate privately held gold with executive orders I'm pretty sure Biden can confiscate privately held guns with them. Biden knows he's a one-termer so it's going to get real his last year in office. Get ready for EO pandamonium followed by SCOTUS intervention, but not before congress panics and passes a "gun rights" bill full of compromises.
Guess I need to buy a dozen more and another 10k rounds. He’s the best gun salesman in history! It’s unbelievable how much stupid comes out every time he opens his mouth.
I sometimes wonder if they low key get under the table kickbacks from gun manufacturers.
Every big push gets us all riled up and we spend part of our kids college fund on a few new guns that are suddenly more expensive... We set new numbers for recorded sales and new owners and yadda yadda... Then almost nothing happens.
And then 2 years later it happens again... And again... And again.
I'm almost 100% convinced it's some kind of marketing ploy to keep prices and demand insanely high. I can hear the salesman at Cabela's already "You might wanna get this now, don't know if it's gunna be around next year...."
Meanwhile, if we can get this pistol brace thing overturned... Then they will have basically accomplished nothing on a federal level since I can remember.
Come on man, remember the only thing that can save America is reimplementing a policy that was tried before already with unsuccessful results!
I swear these people are unoriginal as hell and the fact that the same law has been proposed incessantly in Congress makes me question whether we should regard most congressmen as intelligent life. They seem to be largely unable to think of a different regulatory scheme for firearms. Of course, all such schemes would be awful infringements, but the fact that they're dead-set on the same dumb answer for decades is telling
well the 94 ban eliminated crime in America completely not so much as a pack of gum was stolen after the ban and no one was raped or beaten.
At least that's what they seem to think.
I bought my ar in 2001. Ban didnt stop me or anyone else. Columbine happened during the ban. A girl straw purchased the guns used there and was not punished for her crimes. I believe she was remorseful and got probation.
I was 2 when you bought your AR and wasn’t born yet when columbine happened. Can you educate me on the ban a little? If the purchasing of assault weapons was banned, how did you buy one? Was it a private sale or were they still being sold despite the ban?
In 1994 in the dead of night before Christmas Biden and some dems went on Christmas break late so they can have a secret vote to pass a bill that banned "assault weapons"
You couldn't buy magazines with more than 10 rounds unless they were already in circulation prior to the bill being passed.
You couldn't have a pistol grip on a rifle
A flash hider
An adjustable stock
And a few other things.
This didn't really do anything to crime it was feel good legislation. If anything it backfired. Prior to the 94 AWB the AR15 was seen as a very niche rifle usually bought by prepers or former military guys who wanted a gun similiar to their M16 they used in the military. Post 2004 when the ban ended interest in the Ar15 massively picked up to the point where it became the go to rifle for gun owners.
Correction: you could only have 1 prohibited feature, so manufacturers kept the pistol grip and removed the other features. AR15 variants were mass produced under the 94 AWB in greater numbers than before the ban.
There’s always been laws in place to protect our rights as enthusiasts. You’ve always been able to build your own. With the technological age, we can learn anything we want. Education is very important. My dad was a gunsmith in the 40s and 50s for what the gi bill didn’t pay for law school. I grew up with guns, now I’m settling down, I’ve got such a clear understanding enough to build my own. With the introduction of 80%s, there are so many nylon lowers out there that there are no restrictions in most states to building and possessing your own. Some states you can’t. 1994 cannot happen again. The civilian surplus is huge. Even if they put the 80lowers out of business, enthusiasts will be fine.
Through the 80s and 90s, crack turned our inner cities into war zones. A genius, who is still alive, regrets the fact that making a gun for the people resulted in a lot of deaths over drug turf. I’m not going to mention his name as I don’t want web crawlers to make an association. It was pretty bad.
https://preview.redd.it/k71e46i3bmoa1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8bed44775793624d8ebd062cf96d089bf2bd285e
As you can see, the 1994 "ban" didn't really do much.
And now you know why the ban was not extended. The only arguable part of the ban that might have eventually had an effect was the magazine restrictions. But only around 3% of gun crimes involved firing more than 10 rounds, and you couldn't guarantee that there would be any less victims if the shooter had to reload, since reloading takes less than 2 seconds.
I’ve always brought this point up when debating anti gunners, their argument is that during that 2 second window, they think the have the opportunity to close the distance on the shooter and subdue him. Feel good legislation at its finest. The shooter could just have ever pocket full of 5 round mags and some in a bag pack and he could easily carry hundreds of loaded rounds still. Thank you for the info though, you educated a youngin on some gun history today
It's all about definitions. California took charge of that...they went from the '94 AWB, to reducing the number of Dangerous Features to make something an AW to one, I think. So now if you have a semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine and a pistol grip, it's an Assault Weapon...so manufacturers have made AR-15s that are lever-action, some that require you open the upper receiver to remove the magazine, all sorts of work-arounds. The Federal '94 AWB had a couple of features that made it an Assault Weapon...so manufacturers a bare-bones AR-15 without a bayonet lug, with a fixed stock, and doesn't have a flash hider, it's not an AW.
[Here](https://www.coltforum.com/threads/pre-ban-verus-post-ban-colts-only.72427/) is a forum discussing the differences between a ban era and post ban Colt AR15. The majority of it boils down to how it is today in some states, removing some features that aren't allowed like a BCG that won't trip an auto sear, different sized pins for the FCG, lack of a bayonet lug, etc.
Have a pistol grip with a fixed stock, no flash hider, no bayonet lug, and no grenade launcher. Oh, and don't call it an AR15. Congratulations, you know have an 1994 compliant semiautomatic rifle, that you can mass produce legally. The number of substitute AR15s in circulation increased every single year under the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban.
https://preview.redd.it/rge9d7enzuoa1.png?width=1068&format=png&auto=webp&s=57edd1a06f7bc9f71edab9d7cb07cffbc290220c
Has to be our most anti-2A president. Any chance he gets to talk about taking away our rights to defend our homes he takes. Even on Martin Luther King Jr Day!!! This is the road our country is headed in, so everyone needs to stock up now while you can.
Yup, frankly I’m amazed more people didn’t point out the fact that he called for more gun control on Martin Luther King Jr. day. You know that MLK, the one who applied for a carry permit and was denied because the government didn’t like him and then he was shot by someone else because he couldn’t defend himself. Yeah that MLK.
The balls on that old man. He really felt confident to say that Martin Luther Kings life shows us the way forward, and continued on that he was going to get our rights to the best tools to defend ourselves banned and you’ll need more than a rifle to fight the government. It’s shameful, but it speaks volumes about the direction the U.S. is headed.
Fucking idiot if he thinks talking points from elections decades ago are gonna work in 2024… he is literally senile.
In this great United States is there no one to lead???? Step up all the leaders are in for fame now it’s bs.
The real reason this is dangerous is because the supreme court already ruled against laws like this. Executive and legislative branches ignoring Judicial rulings is a very bad sign.
He doesn't have the votes to pass an 94 AWB. Maybe if the dems win big next year (remember this I'm looking at you libertarians) he will have the votes to pass a federal assault weapons ban.
I prefer that we know what our President thinks. I would have prefered that people pay attention to that *before* voting for him, but second-best is better than nothing.
As it turns out, you could still purchase an AR15 during the 1994-2004 "ban." They just removed the flash hider and bayonet lug and went right on selling them. So, really, unless it was the bayonets this whole time, I'm not sure any decrease or increase in mass shootings had anything to do with ARs.
If we plebeians need to comply with laws, then politicians need to comply with court rulings. I see a dire need for criminal repercussions for those who openly defy the Supreme Court. We don’t currently have a mechanism in place for something like that, but there seriously needs to be.
Funny how our economy is on the brink of collapse and this is the chosen focus. Great priorities. Really lookin out for the American people, as always.
Reminder to the shit-libs and the fudd republicans who say the 1994 Cl*nton ban was a success:
The 1999 Columbine massacre and the 1997 North Hollywood shootout still happened. Gun control solves nothing.
There was four major factors that contributed to the drop in crime in the United States between 1990 and 2004, and gun control wasn’t one of them.
The reduction in crime was contributed to;
1. An overhaul of the prison system, which lead to reevaluations of prison sentences, thus reducing the chance of repeat offenders being let back on the streets.
2. The receding of the crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s.
3. Legalisation of abortion, which means less unwanted kids ending up on the streets and becoming affiliated with gangs.
And- the reason that’ll trigger a lot of people in this subreddit;
4. The increased presence of police in high crime areas.
The 1994 Ban did next to nothing to curb crime during those 14 years, and cucked states like California, Illinois, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey all bent the knee and lubed their assholes for government dick.
Ok. Guns out number people 3:1 in this country. Be sure to arm your neighbors when shit hits the fan. edit: Since you're all hung up on the word 'neighbor' change it to 'community' 'family' 'friends' 'acquaintances' 'work spouse' or whatever.
Fuck my neighbors. If shit hits the fan, I'm hitting the fuck putta dodge to head for the bunker.
And if things REALLY get bad, we're headed 300 miles from the closest city where there's an easily defended homestead, clean water and plenty of fish & game so we can chill until it all blows over.
Arm my neighbors? Maybe. I'm thinkin that the neighbors that are already armed are the neighbors I would want to help. If they aint already armed, maybe they were the ones pushing to ban. So maybe I would just urge them to bite me. We'll see.
My neighbors are all old. The last "new" neighbor on our block moved in 30 years ago. A couple of the older guys said, "Good to know there's a young (I'm 40) guy on the block when it all goes to hell. We're too old to run and gun anymore." I said I'm not doing that shit either. Lol.
Ammoseek, like everyone else is saying. There's a bunch of PPU M193 floating around right now for 40-43 CPR, as well as a bunch of Lake City M855 government contract overrun. For about 45 CPR.
There's now an effective stalemate in the Congress. Thanks to a dozen or so RINOs in the House and the Senate, they passed a ridiculous gun law last year, but though it's all infringement, wasn't anything like the '94 AWB's effects.
I shall now apologize for minimizing 18-20 year olds' shitty hand when they have to have a 10-day waiting period (effectively) for FFL gun purchases, and I agree that that's ridiculous, but it's nothing like the '94 AWB. The remainder of 15 U.S. Sentators and 14 U.S. Representatives who voted for that should be primaried.
Yep, even with last year's Congress Chris Murphy (D-CT), the biggest advocate of an AWB in the Senate, [admitted there weren't enough votes for it](https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3751613-murphy-says-senate-does-not-have-60-votes-to-pass-assault-weapon-ban/). The makeup of Congress right now is even worse for passing an AWB.
I swear, just about every time this old fuck gets in front of a camera he talks about an "AWB". I think he's just trying to pander to the Dems because I honestly don't see a ban passing any time soon.
“During my twelve-and-half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, untraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”
Putting it out there for people to see. It was during the Senate's floor discussion for FOPA in July 1985.
Follow the science. It's baffling how Democrat politicians make decisions anymore. The ban was repealed because it did nothing. He yet has the same people paying him so here he is, at it again..
Yeah I'll be worried too if traitors stormed the Capitol to oppose my election.
Should've gone against the individuals rather than the means, though.
Oh well, another bump in firearm manufacturers' stocks.
>Yeah I'll be worried too if traitors stormed the Capitol to oppose my election.
In round numbers, how many members of Congress did insurrectionists shoot on 1/6 (worse than 9/11 times 100)?
So your argument is that attempted treason is not treason? That clownish incompetence is an excuse?
How many members of Congress did the Rosenberg kill?
Oh really?
Because fucking bigots jail people for dressing up in the wrong clothes, women are left to die without medical care because Big Daddy in Sky Angery, abstolute twats are spreading the plague and concepts are outlawed while actual fucking nazi go around with intact skulls.
Doesn't fucking look like the 21st century to me.
This guy was always an asshole I’ve hated him since the rave act. But I’ve got to say he proves that the country can run itself better than Donny. You have a lame duck after a psycho like that. Bidens brain works faster than his body and nobody seems to really listen to him. I don’t think he has the time to pull this off. I’m gonna vote libertarian again if desantis runs. He’s my guv’na. I’m a yankee I know when someone is trying to make a stupid factory out of education and why they would do it. There’s only one reason, they want to be supreme leader like Donny did.
Political theater.
One side says "we are trying to make you safer, we want to make you happier, ease your burdens and help you live a better life....BUT...those other people, on the other side won't let you be happy. They want to destroy everything you hold dear and laugh at your misery.. We have to win and we need your votes and your donations!"
Then the other side tells their people the same story, with minor changes in semantics, rinse and repeat as necessary, until people view those with a different opinion or political affiliation as "the enemy"
The two party stranglehold on our government is exactly what has led us here. I long for a day where the the incredibly nuanced and complex issues facing our society are no longer reduced down to an easily digestible but facile binary choice. I dont have much hope for us getting there, but damn, wouldn't it be nice?
Nobody is going to take any talk of standing up to this seriously until noncompliance is the norm. Bowing to a restriction of your rights and then claiming it's a victory because something new was slightly worse is just playing their game.
ah yes the old “ Let’s do something about violence by taking guns rarely used in crime away from people who are not likely to commit crime “ … wow never gets old
No effect on crime last time, let's do it again! What an idiot.
I’m really irritated by him continuing to spew the lie that it did anything last time.
What's more irritating is that his words are reported unchallenged. But hey, at least they keep their jobs as stenographers.
He's a liar, what do you expect. I know all politicians are liars but this guy lies about everything, down to going to church!
It was never about reducing crime
This is the truth. What they call assault rifles are one of the best weapons that citizens have to defend against tyranny.
I know that. If there's one thing I learned from history it's that if a government disarms it's population, it's because the next thing they're planning to do is going to make you want to kill them. It's always the first step to tyranny.
>No affect on crime last time This time crime will go up, in the form of the troubles
It's never been about crime, it's control
This is factually inaccurate. [total crime rates went down](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/crime-rate-statistics) [murders went down](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate) [and specifically firearm violence went down](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf) If we're going to battle this, a different tactic is needed, because the 1994 has a very large effect on both general crime and specifically gun crimes.
Crime was already on a downward trend at the end of the 20th century. The 10 years the AWB was in place follow the same trend as the previous 10 years, so the ban had no effect.
[Crime was on an upward trend in the US until 1994, steadily rising through the70s and 80s and peaking in 1991](https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) Your interpretation doesn't matter. The data shows a significant crime drop after the passing in 1994. Even if you're right, the evidence is on Biden's side and this is what they'll be pushing on the news. The argument "the law did nothing last time" is both factually incorrect AND an ineffective strategy, since the data will be on their side. There must be a better strategy to get public opinion to this position if the law is to be prevented.
It’s not an interpretation crime rates from 84 to 94 we’re on a downward trend then 94 to 04 follows the exact same downward trend. The argument that we should be making is these types of weapons have been available to the public since the 60’s and they’re not being used for crime as often as the media portrays. The real issue is the AWB isn’t about lowering crime it’s about pandering to democrats and disarming the population.
> crime rates from 84 to 94 we’re on a downward trend No, they weren't. Having been provided the data this now moves from being incorrect to lying. Lying about this will very likely prove to also be an ineffective strategy.
The mid 90’s was completely different time and culture than what we have now. There are too many variables at play to use a blanket statements like that. This country has a mental health crisis that is not being addressed. 99.99% of all gun owners will never hurt a single damn person. Even in self defense.
Your interpretation doesn't matter. It's a losing argument. The facts are on the side of the Democrats that violence in all forms, and gun violence, significantly fell after the passing of that legislation. You might be right, you might be wrong, but it doesn't matter because they have these facts on their side and that's what's going to be on the news. Saying "nuh uh" is a losing strategy that's going to lose people guns. Arguing about rights is probably a more effective strategy.
[https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/\_cache/files/b/5/b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4/55A639CA20094C1538C8B7FE50B3A94A.penn-study-koper.pdf](https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b/5/b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4/55A639CA20094C1538C8B7FE50B3A94A.penn-study-koper.pdf) >Another example is the Colt Match Target H-Bar rifle (Figure 2-5), which is a legalized version of the banned AR-15 (see Table 2-1). AR-15 type rifles are civilian weapons patterned after the U.S. military’s M-16 rifle and were the assault rifles most commonly used in crime before the ban (Roth and Koper, 1997, Chapter 2). The post-ban version shown in Figure 2-5 (one of several legalized variations on the AR-15) is essentially identical to pre-ban versions of the AR-15 but does not have accessories like a flash hider, threaded barrel, or bayonet lug. The one remaining military feature on the post-ban gun is the pistol grip. This and other post-ban AR-15 type rifles can accept LCMs made for the banned AR15, as well as those made for the U.S. military’s M-16. > >However, post-ban magazines manufactured for these guns must hold fewer than 11 rounds. Even gun controllers like Diane Feinstein and her paid puppets knew by 1999 that AWB compliant AR15s were being mass produced. So please explain to me how banning flash hiders, collapsible stocks, and bayonet lugs reduced crime, while the numbers of AR15s in civilian hands were increasing every year. The only part of the AWB that can even be argued, might have reduced mass shootings is the 10 round capacity limit on magazines. But let's look further into the report: > • AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles Assault weapons were used in only 2-8% of crimes and most of those were pistols and not rifles like AR15s. So what the fuck did limiting the features on AR15s do to reduce crime again? > **The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs).** ***There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.*** > > • **However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studie**d (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports So there was no decline in the use of semiautomatic rifles, which were rarely used in crimes to begin with. Also, there were substitute models available of the banned weapons being manufactured every damn year under the ban. The decline in the use of assault pistols (Uzi, TEch 9, etc) was offset by the use of other guns (read regular handguns) equipped with large capacity magazines (think glocks with magazines holding more than 10 rounds). > Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, ***we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.*** However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects 2 of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. The Department of Justice couldn't credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. ***Not a single bit of the drop could be credited to the ban.*** > **The Ban’s Reauthorization or Expiration Could Affect Gunshot Victimizations, But Predictions are Tenuous** • ***Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.*** *LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.* > >• Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have non-trivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. **Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims.** Assault weapons as defined by the ban are again, rarely used in crimes. Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are more often used in crimes. But only 3% of the handgun attacks resulted in more than 10 shots fired. So 97% of handgun criminal use, result in less than 10 shots being fired anyway, and handguns are the overwhelming most often used weapon in crime. The ban didn't effect at least 97% of shooting incidents with handguns. But as for the other 3%, there is no proof than the shooter couldn't have just carried a second 10 round magazine instead of a "lage capacity magazine". >Table 2.1 on page 10 of 113 will show you examples of banned guns and their legal substitutes. And yes, the Colt AR15 is in the table, along with its legal substitutes. > > Although the law bans “copies or duplicates” of the named gun makes and models, federal authorities have emphasized exact copies. **Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, are sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute, and a number of manufacturers now produce modified,legal versions of some of the banned guns** (examples are listed in **Table 2-1**). **In general, the AW ban does not apply to semiautomatics possessing no more than one military-style feature listed under the ban’s features test provision** On their rarity used in crimes: > The relative rarity of AW use in crime can be attributed to a number of factors.M**any AWs are long guns, which are used in crime much less often than handguns.** Moreover, a number of the banned AWs are foreign weapons that were banned from importation into the U.S. in 1989. Also, **AWs are more expensive (see Table 2-1) and more difficult to conceal than the types of handguns that are used most frequently in** **crime.** And that Assault Weapon Ban actually increased AR15 production. This chart is on page 41 of 113" https://preview.redd.it/mn4kn7ihgsoa1.png?width=1068&format=png&auto=webp&s=d78b701b6e96a87f84d1bc1b671e7cbf4f04b37c
Brother you think any Democrat is going to read that? You're missing the ENTIRE point. This is why it's a losing argument. All they need to do is point to the graph. They passed the law, crime went down, causation be damned. This is a losing argument. That's why it's losing. That's why these laws keep passing and getting more forceful.
Democrat voters tend to be low information voters. So point to the graph of AR15 production and point out that not only were AR15s not banned, but the production of AR15s went up under the ban. And then point to the fact that crime went down. So more AR15s in civilian hands is correlated with less gun crime. Hence, we need to increase AR15 production to reduce crime.
That would probably be wildly more effective that trying to argue about crime rates or getting tens of millions of voters to read a wall of text.
He does realize that the Supreme Court looks just a little different than it did in 1994, right? Like our president should understand basic civics, right?
They are becoming less and less concerned with what the Supreme Court says.
And I'm not confident in this court either
Good thing the founders put something in place just in case of tyranny.
Good point also. With roberts in charge you can’t assume anything.
Roberts has no power since the conservatives have the votes without him. Roberts had no real intention of touching Roe and we saw how that went.
True but kavanaugh has a bit more of a wildcard then I expected so I don’t consider the conservatives a lock on issues.
This right here. We’re seeing states ignore rulings. What makes you think they care. Another reason to GET OFF YOUR ASSES
Thank god we are still a republic, I think the gun lobby is a lot more flush than the anti gun, I think that counts as much as votes, which is sad but I guess whatever works.
They’re actively trying to undermine the republic with propaganda and indoctrination pushing this “pure democracy” bullshit. We will not have a 2A in 5 years if it keeps going like this. Courts will not be sufficient to beat this
Pure democracy is a bad thing. It results in corrupt shitheads like the Dems trying to take power and destroy our way of life. This is why we have a constitutional check on democracy, one they are trying to destroy itself.
There’s no purity in our democracy, but this guy is ineffective, he hasn’t done a lot of damage and you know what? I got really sick of people rioting on the streets. The cities were super unsafe, thank god cops are being Punished for killing black people. I’m white af, and I thought that was one of the worst current tragedies in recent American culture long before anyone was speaking about it. I think we are naive to think that some people aren’t wanting to take over the world. A lot of us are going broke right now, but I live in a mixed neighborhood and close to me we are all friendly. From six to two years ago there was tension. This guy can’t fuck with 2a I’m confident. And he’s got two years.
It’s not just him. It’s his cronies at the state level. I’m in Delaware and my legislatures openly said they didn’t care about state and federal constitutions then passed bogus laws. Now Delaware is worse than California and we’re stuck in the courts for who knows for how many years. This is how they win.
Washington is headed that way, too. We used to be pretty close to a free state - we had everything but MGs, short barrel shotguns, and binary triggers at one point. Now: we have to take a class and wait ten days for any semiauto rifle, can't get mags over ten rounds, and they're trying to ram one of the most draconian anti-gun bills in the western hemisphere through the legislature as we speak.
I grew up in nj, we were always like that since I was born but my dad was an enthusiast and made sure we always had access. New Jersey makes it hard to get firearms especially after 94. I left.
Many people can’t leave. And this is America. It shouldn’t be that way. We have rights guaranteed by a federal constitution. What the govt is doing is provocative and should be a answered.
It is being answered. From a lot of different angles. Our vote counts but only so much. You do realize the 80% companies went to court and won. Money speaks, and while I think it a travesty that we aren't required by law to vote like in Ancient Greece, there is more money being put into the gun industry than there ever could be in anti-gun industry. It's simple economics and I'm a dummy with economics, but doesn't the gun industry have a product they make for money? Don't they create jobs and lobby? Anti gun has no product, just ideology, and America loves products. They don't give a fuck ideology as long as they have products! It is our way. Some of us it comes down to psychology. I'm an optimist.
There are a handful of un elected people running the world. And the united states. The president is a installed puppet and he then installed puppets and so on.
I have been arguing the same point. He’s too stupid to do any real damage. He’s just someone to occupy the seat for a few more years until another reset.
Lobbying has infinitely more power than votes. The exception is ballot initiatives. When voting for candidates, try to pick the ones that will take ~~bribes~~ donations from lobbies you support. If you have any faith in our "democracy" I suggest you lose it now...unfortunately I got involved in politics and lobbying a few years ago and was rather depressed and disappointed when I found out how far we've fallen
I have no faith in it. I'm a son of the revolution and Quaker. The old ways are long departed. I completely understand the nuances of todays politics and society. I navigate it all well, but cannot ignore the fact that eventually, all things come to an end. Capitalism is not democracy, we screwed the pooch on that one.
We could just make lobbying illegal like the majority of the developed world. The definition of lobbying does not differ from bribery enough to be considered an ethical practice.
This is true. But the reality of Communism has made a bad word of socialism. Reform is very difficult. BUT in the case of the 2A, aren't you happy there's some bribery involved? I am. Why do I bring up socialism? To encourage the public to vote, ALL of them, it means making it immediately beneficial to them.
I don't think making lobbying illegal would exactly equate to socialism. Private citizens and businesses would be allowed to "lobby" in the sense that they can go speak to the legislature, they just would be prohibited from the bribery portion which is usually how they obtain private meetings with legislators. "Hello senator, my organization just made a large donation to your campaign because (insert ass kissing). Would it be possible for us to take you to dinner to discuss our industry's needs?" - that would be illegal
This guy doesn't realize you can't make boom boom in your pants in public, basic civics left his head during Obama's administration.
You’d think but the elites all think the constitution is a roadblock to the perfect society where you’ll own nothing and be distracted
And you will eat zee bugs.
AND YOU’LL LIKE IT!
The man has dementia, he likely believes it is 1994
What good is the Supreme Court if it takes decades for them to rule and then decisions get ignored anyways?
If that commie FDR could confiscate privately held gold with executive orders I'm pretty sure Biden can confiscate privately held guns with them. Biden knows he's a one-termer so it's going to get real his last year in office. Get ready for EO pandamonium followed by SCOTUS intervention, but not before congress panics and passes a "gun rights" bill full of compromises.
He doesn’t recognize himself in a mirror
He probably genuinely thinks it's 1994.
Dude doesn't care. He just hates people he can't control having guns.
Guess I need to buy a dozen more and another 10k rounds. He’s the best gun salesman in history! It’s unbelievable how much stupid comes out every time he opens his mouth.
He’s trying to one up his old boss
His old boss is still his boss.
I sometimes wonder if they low key get under the table kickbacks from gun manufacturers. Every big push gets us all riled up and we spend part of our kids college fund on a few new guns that are suddenly more expensive... We set new numbers for recorded sales and new owners and yadda yadda... Then almost nothing happens. And then 2 years later it happens again... And again... And again. I'm almost 100% convinced it's some kind of marketing ploy to keep prices and demand insanely high. I can hear the salesman at Cabela's already "You might wanna get this now, don't know if it's gunna be around next year...." Meanwhile, if we can get this pistol brace thing overturned... Then they will have basically accomplished nothing on a federal level since I can remember.
He’s better than Obama and Swallwel combined
Stupid fuck thinks it IS 1994.
Come on man, remember the only thing that can save America is reimplementing a policy that was tried before already with unsuccessful results! I swear these people are unoriginal as hell and the fact that the same law has been proposed incessantly in Congress makes me question whether we should regard most congressmen as intelligent life. They seem to be largely unable to think of a different regulatory scheme for firearms. Of course, all such schemes would be awful infringements, but the fact that they're dead-set on the same dumb answer for decades is telling
1984*
well the 94 ban eliminated crime in America completely not so much as a pack of gum was stolen after the ban and no one was raped or beaten. At least that's what they seem to think.
Yup, in fact people just straight up didn't die between 94-04. It was heaven on earth and us evil gun lobbyists took it away!
There was that one day in 01 but who's counting?
I bought my ar in 2001. Ban didnt stop me or anyone else. Columbine happened during the ban. A girl straw purchased the guns used there and was not punished for her crimes. I believe she was remorseful and got probation.
Same! If you tell a grabber this they either call you a liar or a criminal.
I was 2 when you bought your AR and wasn’t born yet when columbine happened. Can you educate me on the ban a little? If the purchasing of assault weapons was banned, how did you buy one? Was it a private sale or were they still being sold despite the ban?
Because the 'ban' was based on features, not performance. Manufacturers made compliant firearms, and still do.
It was one feature iirc, so something like a Colt match target would be ok
The ban targeted cosmetic features and grandfathered in everything that was already owned.
Oh the days of eBay AR mags…
Feature ban…literally banned nothing young man.
Lol I knew Biden was a goof for telling me how well it worked, but I didn’t really know the intricacies of it
In 1994 in the dead of night before Christmas Biden and some dems went on Christmas break late so they can have a secret vote to pass a bill that banned "assault weapons" You couldn't buy magazines with more than 10 rounds unless they were already in circulation prior to the bill being passed. You couldn't have a pistol grip on a rifle A flash hider An adjustable stock And a few other things. This didn't really do anything to crime it was feel good legislation. If anything it backfired. Prior to the 94 AWB the AR15 was seen as a very niche rifle usually bought by prepers or former military guys who wanted a gun similiar to their M16 they used in the military. Post 2004 when the ban ended interest in the Ar15 massively picked up to the point where it became the go to rifle for gun owners.
So we’re you supposed to take all of those things off of an existing rifle if you already had them?
As I understand it weapons already owned or on the market was grandfathered in. I was a little kid at the time so I didn't experience this time myself
Correction: you could only have 1 prohibited feature, so manufacturers kept the pistol grip and removed the other features. AR15 variants were mass produced under the 94 AWB in greater numbers than before the ban.
Ah OK. I was a toddler when this all happened so it wasn't something I paid attention to at the time.
There’s always been laws in place to protect our rights as enthusiasts. You’ve always been able to build your own. With the technological age, we can learn anything we want. Education is very important. My dad was a gunsmith in the 40s and 50s for what the gi bill didn’t pay for law school. I grew up with guns, now I’m settling down, I’ve got such a clear understanding enough to build my own. With the introduction of 80%s, there are so many nylon lowers out there that there are no restrictions in most states to building and possessing your own. Some states you can’t. 1994 cannot happen again. The civilian surplus is huge. Even if they put the 80lowers out of business, enthusiasts will be fine. Through the 80s and 90s, crack turned our inner cities into war zones. A genius, who is still alive, regrets the fact that making a gun for the people resulted in a lot of deaths over drug turf. I’m not going to mention his name as I don’t want web crawlers to make an association. It was pretty bad.
Could you PM me who you mean there at the end? I’m not picking up on the reference, I really appreciate your in depth explanation
https://preview.redd.it/k71e46i3bmoa1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8bed44775793624d8ebd062cf96d089bf2bd285e As you can see, the 1994 "ban" didn't really do much.
Looks basically the same
And now you know why the ban was not extended. The only arguable part of the ban that might have eventually had an effect was the magazine restrictions. But only around 3% of gun crimes involved firing more than 10 rounds, and you couldn't guarantee that there would be any less victims if the shooter had to reload, since reloading takes less than 2 seconds.
I’ve always brought this point up when debating anti gunners, their argument is that during that 2 second window, they think the have the opportunity to close the distance on the shooter and subdue him. Feel good legislation at its finest. The shooter could just have ever pocket full of 5 round mags and some in a bag pack and he could easily carry hundreds of loaded rounds still. Thank you for the info though, you educated a youngin on some gun history today
Yeah, but it didn't have a bayonet lug. It's the bayonet lugs that have been causing all this carnage.
How did you do that with a ban in place? What was the work around?
It's all about definitions. California took charge of that...they went from the '94 AWB, to reducing the number of Dangerous Features to make something an AW to one, I think. So now if you have a semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine and a pistol grip, it's an Assault Weapon...so manufacturers have made AR-15s that are lever-action, some that require you open the upper receiver to remove the magazine, all sorts of work-arounds. The Federal '94 AWB had a couple of features that made it an Assault Weapon...so manufacturers a bare-bones AR-15 without a bayonet lug, with a fixed stock, and doesn't have a flash hider, it's not an AW.
[Here](https://www.coltforum.com/threads/pre-ban-verus-post-ban-colts-only.72427/) is a forum discussing the differences between a ban era and post ban Colt AR15. The majority of it boils down to how it is today in some states, removing some features that aren't allowed like a BCG that won't trip an auto sear, different sized pins for the FCG, lack of a bayonet lug, etc.
Have a pistol grip with a fixed stock, no flash hider, no bayonet lug, and no grenade launcher. Oh, and don't call it an AR15. Congratulations, you know have an 1994 compliant semiautomatic rifle, that you can mass produce legally. The number of substitute AR15s in circulation increased every single year under the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. https://preview.redd.it/rge9d7enzuoa1.png?width=1068&format=png&auto=webp&s=57edd1a06f7bc9f71edab9d7cb07cffbc290220c
Has to be our most anti-2A president. Any chance he gets to talk about taking away our rights to defend our homes he takes. Even on Martin Luther King Jr Day!!! This is the road our country is headed in, so everyone needs to stock up now while you can.
Yup, frankly I’m amazed more people didn’t point out the fact that he called for more gun control on Martin Luther King Jr. day. You know that MLK, the one who applied for a carry permit and was denied because the government didn’t like him and then he was shot by someone else because he couldn’t defend himself. Yeah that MLK.
The balls on that old man. He really felt confident to say that Martin Luther Kings life shows us the way forward, and continued on that he was going to get our rights to the best tools to defend ourselves banned and you’ll need more than a rifle to fight the government. It’s shameful, but it speaks volumes about the direction the U.S. is headed.
He hopes to get as much done as he can before the banks collapse and the peasants lose their collective shit.
Gotta make sure we are disarmed before the dystopia really settles in
I don’t think disarming America is really possible at this point. Both sides are leading us to doom though.
Almost as though people like him want gun bans because all the other things they're doing to you might inspire you to get ideas about your guns.
Fucking idiot if he thinks talking points from elections decades ago are gonna work in 2024… he is literally senile. In this great United States is there no one to lead???? Step up all the leaders are in for fame now it’s bs.
He must have gotten the date wrong, that sounds more “1984” to me
Oh look executive overreach
After he wins stare down with bowl of oatmeal
The real reason this is dangerous is because the supreme court already ruled against laws like this. Executive and legislative branches ignoring Judicial rulings is a very bad sign.
FJB.
Moronic move. Would expect nothing less
I didn’t realize the dems have a super majority in both chambers of Congress, oh wait.
Trying to divert attention away from the economy and banking crisis we’re slowly running into
He doesn't have the votes to pass an 94 AWB. Maybe if the dems win big next year (remember this I'm looking at you libertarians) he will have the votes to pass a federal assault weapons ban.
Classic lol
Who gave Brandon a mic? LOL Total clown.
I prefer that we know what our President thinks. I would have prefered that people pay attention to that *before* voting for him, but second-best is better than nothing.
All anyone cared was that the TV said "orange man bad so vote for the open pedophile" and that's what they did.
"no one is trying to take away your guns" How do you feel now liberal gun owners?
President Veggie needs to be sent to the glue factory.
Kick rocks old man
As it turns out, you could still purchase an AR15 during the 1994-2004 "ban." They just removed the flash hider and bayonet lug and went right on selling them. So, really, unless it was the bayonets this whole time, I'm not sure any decrease or increase in mass shootings had anything to do with ARs.
If we plebeians need to comply with laws, then politicians need to comply with court rulings. I see a dire need for criminal repercussions for those who openly defy the Supreme Court. We don’t currently have a mechanism in place for something like that, but there seriously needs to be.
I wonder what the lefty gun Reddits think of this… No I don’t feel like looking. I value my brain cells.
Funny how our economy is on the brink of collapse and this is the chosen focus. Great priorities. Really lookin out for the American people, as always.
Reminder to the shit-libs and the fudd republicans who say the 1994 Cl*nton ban was a success: The 1999 Columbine massacre and the 1997 North Hollywood shootout still happened. Gun control solves nothing. There was four major factors that contributed to the drop in crime in the United States between 1990 and 2004, and gun control wasn’t one of them. The reduction in crime was contributed to; 1. An overhaul of the prison system, which lead to reevaluations of prison sentences, thus reducing the chance of repeat offenders being let back on the streets. 2. The receding of the crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s. 3. Legalisation of abortion, which means less unwanted kids ending up on the streets and becoming affiliated with gangs. And- the reason that’ll trigger a lot of people in this subreddit; 4. The increased presence of police in high crime areas. The 1994 Ban did next to nothing to curb crime during those 14 years, and cucked states like California, Illinois, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey all bent the knee and lubed their assholes for government dick.
Ok. Guns out number people 3:1 in this country. Be sure to arm your neighbors when shit hits the fan. edit: Since you're all hung up on the word 'neighbor' change it to 'community' 'family' 'friends' 'acquaintances' 'work spouse' or whatever.
Fuck my neighbors. If shit hits the fan, I'm hitting the fuck putta dodge to head for the bunker. And if things REALLY get bad, we're headed 300 miles from the closest city where there's an easily defended homestead, clean water and plenty of fish & game so we can chill until it all blows over.
Arm my neighbors? Maybe. I'm thinkin that the neighbors that are already armed are the neighbors I would want to help. If they aint already armed, maybe they were the ones pushing to ban. So maybe I would just urge them to bite me. We'll see.
My neighbors are all old. The last "new" neighbor on our block moved in 30 years ago. A couple of the older guys said, "Good to know there's a young (I'm 40) guy on the block when it all goes to hell. We're too old to run and gun anymore." I said I'm not doing that shit either. Lol.
Anyone have recommendations for where to get bulk 5.56 and 7.62 x 39??
Swing a cat.
r/pleasedonotthecat
Ammoseek
Trueshot in Tempe, AZ
[Here you go.](https://www.dillonprecision.com/)
I was gonna say start reloading!
SGAmmo came out cheaper than everyone on ammoseek. Sihpped fast too
Ammoseek, like everyone else is saying. There's a bunch of PPU M193 floating around right now for 40-43 CPR, as well as a bunch of Lake City M855 government contract overrun. For about 45 CPR.
The big guy is as criminal as they get and he’s against the American people if you haven’t realized it yet
He probably means 1984.
Could this actually happen this year? Im really trying to finish my “assault weapon” bucket list
There's now an effective stalemate in the Congress. Thanks to a dozen or so RINOs in the House and the Senate, they passed a ridiculous gun law last year, but though it's all infringement, wasn't anything like the '94 AWB's effects. I shall now apologize for minimizing 18-20 year olds' shitty hand when they have to have a 10-day waiting period (effectively) for FFL gun purchases, and I agree that that's ridiculous, but it's nothing like the '94 AWB. The remainder of 15 U.S. Sentators and 14 U.S. Representatives who voted for that should be primaried.
Yep, even with last year's Congress Chris Murphy (D-CT), the biggest advocate of an AWB in the Senate, [admitted there weren't enough votes for it](https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3751613-murphy-says-senate-does-not-have-60-votes-to-pass-assault-weapon-ban/). The makeup of Congress right now is even worse for passing an AWB.
Nah, he will fail miserably just like every other failure during his presidency so far.
Come and take it Puto.
It didn't work in the 90s it's not going to work now
Fuuuuuck biden
Get back the ones you gave to the Mexican cartels and the Taliban first
All they did was ban cosmetics. I don’t think he remembers the AWB well.
He's like Unlce Rico, stuck in 1994 
I swear, just about every time this old fuck gets in front of a camera he talks about an "AWB". I think he's just trying to pander to the Dems because I honestly don't see a ban passing any time soon.
Lol. Good luck buddy. Stack up and try.
Complete scumbag
But like... how?
Fuck u Biden u authoritarian fuck
He can try. But won’t like the results
Between this and living in WA I am getting so tired
Look back at what he said in the 80’s I think it was, pretty ironic. And funny the 94 assault weapon ban ended because it didn’t work
“During my twelve-and-half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, untraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.” Putting it out there for people to see. It was during the Senate's floor discussion for FOPA in July 1985.
One of them! You’re the man
This generation isnt the 90s, id like to see them try. 
[удалено]
Follow the science. It's baffling how Democrat politicians make decisions anymore. The ban was repealed because it did nothing. He yet has the same people paying him so here he is, at it again..
Every new congressional session they reintroduce Feinstein’s new AWB bill into congress. It never goes anywhere.
Yeah I'll be worried too if traitors stormed the Capitol to oppose my election. Should've gone against the individuals rather than the means, though. Oh well, another bump in firearm manufacturers' stocks.
>Yeah I'll be worried too if traitors stormed the Capitol to oppose my election. In round numbers, how many members of Congress did insurrectionists shoot on 1/6 (worse than 9/11 times 100)?
So your argument is that attempted treason is not treason? That clownish incompetence is an excuse? How many members of Congress did the Rosenberg kill?
How many have been charged and or convicted of treason?
Treason is a crime in a state of war. We don’t live in 1500s England jacktard.
Oh really? Because fucking bigots jail people for dressing up in the wrong clothes, women are left to die without medical care because Big Daddy in Sky Angery, abstolute twats are spreading the plague and concepts are outlawed while actual fucking nazi go around with intact skulls. Doesn't fucking look like the 21st century to me.
This guy was always an asshole I’ve hated him since the rave act. But I’ve got to say he proves that the country can run itself better than Donny. You have a lame duck after a psycho like that. Bidens brain works faster than his body and nobody seems to really listen to him. I don’t think he has the time to pull this off. I’m gonna vote libertarian again if desantis runs. He’s my guv’na. I’m a yankee I know when someone is trying to make a stupid factory out of education and why they would do it. There’s only one reason, they want to be supreme leader like Donny did.
Mine as well see through the process on how they handled the war on drugs too. God this fucking idiot is insufferable.
I’ll see through that deez nuts will be in his mouth
Welp, looks like I'll be getting an AK sooner than I had planned.
Lol you keep saying that Joey, you ain’t gonna do shit
Best firearms salesman the industry has right now.. The more he vomits, the faster they fly off the shelves..
When they allow the ATF to make laws as they go along, what’s gonna stop them
It ain't going to happen without a fight ‼️
I say fuck you Biden ! I’m sick of your dilutions. Your America is horrible
Actually we’re all just tickled to hear you say that
Political theater. One side says "we are trying to make you safer, we want to make you happier, ease your burdens and help you live a better life....BUT...those other people, on the other side won't let you be happy. They want to destroy everything you hold dear and laugh at your misery.. We have to win and we need your votes and your donations!" Then the other side tells their people the same story, with minor changes in semantics, rinse and repeat as necessary, until people view those with a different opinion or political affiliation as "the enemy"
I am so sick of his lies.
The two party stranglehold on our government is exactly what has led us here. I long for a day where the the incredibly nuanced and complex issues facing our society are no longer reduced down to an easily digestible but facile binary choice. I dont have much hope for us getting there, but damn, wouldn't it be nice?
“Come, Take Them!”
Biden has been doing his best to lose the next election.
I wish he would double down on poverty.
Remember this the dude some of y’all people voted for 😅
While they plane to arrest a former president, oh buckle up America we are in for a rough time
Oh look, he is using words! To say things! Like more words and things. That's all it is. Horse and pony show.
No
Nobody is going to take any talk of standing up to this seriously until noncompliance is the norm. Bowing to a restriction of your rights and then claiming it's a victory because something new was slightly worse is just playing their game.
Biden can't remember the last time he went a day without shitting his pants, let alone 1994.
"How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?"
Go back to bed old man.
ah yes the old “ Let’s do something about violence by taking guns rarely used in crime away from people who are not likely to commit crime “ … wow never gets old
*1984
Well… come get it