Community | April 12, 2009 | 58 comments

Democrats take control of the gun issue! Back Burner for an Assault-Weapons Ban

source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589

Image
ras_menelik
Despite a recent spate of killings, the president and fellow Democrats choose not to wage war on assault weapons.

On the morning of April 4, Richard Poplawski had a quarrel with his mother. It was over a dog urinating on a carpet. Mom called the police to have her 22-year-old son evicted from her house, a brick ranch with a dirty aluminum awning in the Stanton Heights neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Two officers responded to the call, figuring it was a typical domestic dispute. Margaret Poplawski greeted them by saying, "Come and take his ass." But the younger Poplawski, who had been laid off from his job in a glass factory recently, had other plans. He went to a private arms cache in the house, retrieved his guns and strapped on a Kevlar bulletproof vest.

Poplawski shot officer Paul J. Sciullo II, 37, inside the house and hit 29-year-old Stephen Mayhle on the stoop. Both men fell dead. Poplawski calmly stood in the doorway and fired two or three more bullets into Mayhle's body, according to a police affidavit from a witness. Then he retreated into the house and fired hundreds of rounds, using an AK-47 assault rifle and other weapons to fend off a police SWAT team for four hours. He killed one other cop, 41-year-old Eric Kelly, and wounded yet another.

It was the deadliest day in the history of the Steel City's police department. When police finally apprehended and questioned Poplawski, he was without remorse. "He said he wishes he could have killed more Pittsburgh police officers," says a cop who was on the scene but asked not to be identified talking about an ongoing case. (Poplawski's lawyer did not respond to multiple requests for comment last week.)

There was a time when a creep like Poplawski would have become a potent symbol in the debate over gun control. He wasn't your run-of-the-mill malcontent. A white supremacist, he frequented the chat rooms of racist Web sites, where he posted screeds about a "Zionist occupation" bringing the country to economic ruin. But Keith Savage, manager of the Braverman Arms Co., where Poplawski got many of his guns (but not the AK-47, Savage claims), says nothing seemed amiss when he filled out Form 4473—the standard questionnaire for federally required background checks. The gun-shop staff had no way of knowing, for instance, about Poplawski's January 2005 discharge from the Marines for what Lt. Josh Diddams, a U.S. Marine Corps spokesman, tells NEWSWEEK was a "psychological disorder" (he had assaulted his drill sergeant during basic training, says Poplawski's mother). They probably also didn't know that Poplawski's former girlfriend had gotten a restraining order against him, later in 2005, after he grabbed her by the hair and threatened to kill her.

In the past, national political leaders might have raised troubling questions about how such an unstable character could obtain easy access to high-powered weapons. They might have been even more motivated given that Poplawski's cop-killing spree was part of a near epidemic of mass homicides that have left 58 people dead over the past month. Or given that Mexico's insanely violent drug cartels are arming themselves with high-powered assault weapons purchased at U.S. gun stores and later smuggled south of the border. Yet many past champions of stricter gun-control measures are silent. These include top Obama White House officials who have squelched any talk within the administration about pushing further gun-control measures."It's weird," says Peter Hamm, the communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "When you see people like [Attorney General] Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or [White House chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, 'What's up?' "
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Politics,  US,  8 more
  3.     
    |

58 comments // Democrats take control of the gun issue! Back Burner for an Assault-Weapons Ban

  • estee_arie
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  

    • This is not about "need", hunting or any of those issues. Gun control is about freedom, pure and simple. The politician that abrogates this should not be in the legislature.
      There is no "assault weapon"" problem or any other kind of gun problem in this country. Assault weapons have been regulated since the Gun Control Act of 1934. As a class of weapons they are virtually never used in a crime.
      What people rant about is a semi automatic rifle, the same rifles used in every target competition in this country. They are not more powerful, they are just tools and the phobics should not blame them if they are misused.
      Those of you who condemn the NRA and other supporters of firearm ownership should remember that these people and groups are supporting the Bill of Rights. In fact, I believe that the NRA is not strident enough in this matter. There should be a no prisoners, no compromise philosophy on the part of the NRA.
      Since EVERY firearm law in this country is un Constitutional why don't those who want to remove or limit civil rights move to another country where this freedom does not exist. Frankly I am getting tired of this issue. Americans should not support gun control. If you want to live in a less free country then move. This is bs.

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
  • ras_menelik
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • I've copied and pasted this everywhere but, I'll keep saying it because nobody seems to get it yet.

      I'm not for gun control, but guys, you are NOT a check against government power if you own a gun.

      We're living in the age of ICBM's, fighter jets and Abrams tanks.

      Really, your little .357 is not going to save you if the government goes rogue on you.

    • 3 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  

    • Are you going to regulate how many shots they can take? THAT is regulation. No though, what you are going to do it is prohibit certain guns. That is not regulation, that is prohibition. You really think that is going to take the guns out of the criminals hands? What I am saying is that I understand they call it gun regulation, but its really gun prohibition!

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • shanklinmike:

      By your reasoning, should we be allowed thermonuclear weapons?

      NO?! WHY YOU PROHIBITIONIST BASTARD! DO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO RULE OVER EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES?! WE MUST DEFEND OURSELVES!!! HOW DARE YOU DEFILE THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

    • 3 years ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  
    • Image

    • Mexico says US fuels gun crime!

      Can't we ........just get along like good neighbors, all this gun play make an armed man nerves sometimes...................

    • 3 years ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  

    • Here's the twisted part, we're trying to understand SEMI-AUTO pea shooters,and in "the heartland" they play with electrified fly by wire Gatling guns($250-300 thousand) and flame throwers!!!!!!!

    • 3 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • Image

    • To use the term "assault weapon" in a gun debate is accept a carefully devised piece of propaganda. To acknowledging this term as anything else reveals a lack of understanding for firearms and lends support to the anti-gun camp by framing the debate in a completely false way.

      The picture above is an assault weapon as defined by the US military. This weapon has nothing to do with the gun debate.

    • 3 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
  • Reedalmighty
    • 0
      Reedalmighty  

    • have any of you ever gone paintballing with a bunch of guys?

      well,
      say you go with your own gun.
      the games go fine and you go home.

      say you go with no gun,
      you constantly get shot at with no warning while they laugh.

      having a gun to shoot back makes others less likely to shoot in the first place.

    • 3 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • Image

    • Wrong, regulation is prohibition. Regulation states you can't do something, that is a prohibition on that action. There are many people who want the right to protect themselves while the police are busy arresting potheads and not able to get to your house for 10 minutes after you are attacked. I'm sorry but I side with the 'crazy' constitutionalists and Americans instead of the fascists!

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • shanklinmike:

      Regulation is not prohibition. The ownership and operation of automobiles is regulated, Yet driving is not prohibited.

      Next the kool-aide drinker will tell us black is white; the ignorance and misinformation is astounding.

      Another mind lost to the NRA and gun lobby propaganda..

    • 3 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • shanklinmike:

      Are you blind? When they regulate driving they regulate the speed, they PROHIBIT you from driving over a certain limit! Just because you are driving doesn't mean that high speeds are not prohibited! This regulation on speed is a prohibition of speed of your driving! Regulation is prohibition.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • shanklinmike:

      They are both regulations and prohibitions, just on different things. You are simply arguing the degree of regulation. In the end, regulation leads to prohibitions. We are simply arguing words, without regulations, prohibitions would not be possible.

    • 3 years ago
  • Ricky84
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • shanklinmike:

      Ricky

      If you were observant you would note I was not claiming that driving is a right. I was only illustrating the distinction between prohibition and regulation.

      The brainwashed gun nuts insist on conflating the two terms. I would hope that you are smarter than that.

    • 3 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • shanklinmike:

      Yeah and if you were smart and observant you would realize the intent of my post is to reveal the ridiculousness of your analogy. The regulation of a RIGHT based on a personal or moral argument that is in direct conflict with the right itself IS PROHIBITION. Regulating the right to an abortion based on a “godless atheist whore” clause or a “necessity” clause is PROHIBITION. Regulating drugs and other controlled substances based on their purpose and or worth to the general public is PROHIBITION.

      Again the “’Assault Weapons’ Ban” had nothing to do with regulating military style assault weapons. A military style assault weapon is a bomb, or a missile. Furthermore if you understand what a military style assault weapon is then you cannot in good conscience say that a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon.

      “Assault weapon” is a classic form of doublespeak; which BTW makes your quote,

      “The general ignorance and delusion on this topic is at once both sad and fascinating,”

      all the more hilarious. There is nothing delusional about the proper classification of a firearm because the same body of laws that properly classifies and regulates firearms is the same body of laws that allows firearms to be legal. The 1994 ban or any other law based on the need to regulate assault weapons that are not assault weapons is in fact ignorant and delusional.

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • shanklinmike:

      So should we have access to thermonuclear weapons then ricky? That's an armament.

      Gimme a break, you obviously agree with her point. Gun control has always been an argument as to where to draw the line, because the public shouldn't really be as well armed as a modern army is. That'd be nuts.

      The second amendment even fucking says it anyway "A WELL REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of the free state..." you know the rest.

      The founders wanted us to have guns to defend ourselves, but they never intended shit to be completely unmonitored.

      And she is right, it is doublespeak-1984 style bullshit to say regulation is prohibition. Total rhetoric, stump speech crap, devoid of any semblance of a realistic situation and a standard you surely wouldn't apply to any issue but this.

      If you think assault weapons should be legal, that's fine, but that's a separate argument. Don't denounce everything she's saying just to be contentious. A right may be regulated provided the constitution doesn't expressly ban any regulation of it. And there's nothing absurd about that, see my first point above. A literal interpretation of the constitution WOULD read that we should be allowed nuclear weapons, but obviously that's not a sane thing to do.

    • 3 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • shanklinmike:

      The point I’m trying to make is that regulation or prohibition based on junk terminology is bullshit. The “assault weapons” argument is no different than the “creationism” argument. Both positions are ignorant at best and downright propaganda at its worse and are not supported by the professional community of either field.

      “The second amendment even fucking says it anyway "A WELL REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of the free state..." you know the rest.”

      Watch the video. The whole point of the militia reference is to clarify that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed EVEN by the militia.

      “The founders wanted us to have guns to defend ourselves, but they never intended shit to be completely unmonitored.”

      I never said that regulation was wrong. What I was trying to say was, regulation based on non-sensible bullshit is not regulation its prohibition. If you don’t understand the field you’re supposed to be regulating then chances are you’re not going to regulate that field properly. This point was proven years ago by the fact that the Assault Weapons Ban did not regulate A SINGLE ASSAULT WEAPON OR ASSAULT RIFLE! The assault weapons ban prohibited the ownership of semi-automatic rifles that are underpowered in consideration of other rifles (like hunting rifles).

      As for the whole thermonuclear argument… Seriously how can complain about rhetorical arguments while advancing that line? At any rate there is not a single person, group or government on this planet that is capable of safely detonating a nuclear weapon. How this is somehow comparable to firing a gun is beyond me. Last time I checked when I fired a gun at a shooting range the people adjacent to me didn’t die of radiation poising or leukemia.

      “Gun control has always been an argument as to where to draw the line”

      That’s right and the line is almost always determined by common sense. It doesn’t matter if you have a tank, machine gun or rocket. If you have the necessarily qualifications, land and safety measures in place to operate that weapon or devise then you’re pretty much allowed to.

      As for everything else….I get what you’re saying and for the most part I agree. I don’t necessarily have to nit pick but I did based on the fact that Uni claimed that pro-gun crowd were an

      “insane minority of individuals who are simply irrational on a given topic.”

      That’s pretty opinionated and incendiary thing to say. I’m just trying to temper the loftiness of that rhetoric with the truth.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  

    • The Democrats have seemed to reached a consensus that they will not touch gun control for the time being.

      Right now the gun nuts have a great deal of energy, similar to the abortion nuts 20 years ago. They are a large, insane minority of individuals who are simply irrational on a given topic By leaving the issue of guns alone the Dems take advantage of the conservative wing nuts who are going bonkers with fear they might not be able to own an assault weapon or they may be required to register their weapon at all. By not doing anything the Dems allow the right wing fringe to spin it's wheels.expending energy while resisting only a phantom.

      Please remember regulation is not prohibition. The NRA and the gun lobby has spent a huge amount of money and energy to fool the public on this matter. Every time the issue of gun control comes up all these spoon fed zombies brag about how "they won't get my gun", "from my cold dead hands" and all that other macho drivel, when in fact nobody is trying to take their gun, only suggesting a little regulation might save a few lives.

      The general ignorance and delusion on this topic is at once both sad and fascinating. The fact that so many lives are lost makes it a tragedy. The NRA and the gun lobby have certainly deceived a great deal of people, perhaps the best analogy to the scope of their crime would be the tobacco lobby.

    • 3 years ago
  • chasingame
    • 0
      chasingame  
    • unimatrix0:

      "They are a large, insane minority of individuals"

      unimatrix0, I am not going to get drawn into this debate with you. I know we disagree greatly on this topic. I am wondering, however, if you have anything to back up the above statement. Mainly I am interested if the majority in this country actually want gun control. I will look myself and see what I can find also.

    • 3 years ago
  • SHAWN_RITTIMAN
    • 0
      SHAWN_RITTIMAN  

    • Almost anyone can alter a firing pin or mechanism and make a gun fully auto. If you don't mind doing time for getting caught with it go for it. Dumb people have always made it harder for smart ones.

    • 3 years ago
  • Ayahuasca2012
    • 0
      Ayahuasca2012  

    • Regardless of the legality of owning Automatic weapons they still won't be that hard to aquire... I've know plenty of people that owned AK's, etc in places where they were illegal... There will always be a black market.

      Besides that everyone should have the right to defend themselves and by banning the legal purchase of Automatic weapons it creates an uneven playing field between the honest citizens ability to defend themselves and a criminals ability to attack them.

      There's always going to be some crazy person out there who will shoot(or harm in other ways) their family or the police or whatever and banning certain guns or all guns or no guns isn't going to change that.

    • 3 years ago
  • SHAWN_RITTIMAN
    • 0
      SHAWN_RITTIMAN  

    • Even if they took them all away....I would have the BEST arsenal of rocks sticks, heavy and sharp things you could imagine! Not to mention explosives and fire. Bring it on baby.

    • 3 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • evoleon
  • evoleon
    • 0
      evoleon  

    • lol it doesn't matter even if guns become illegal, they will still be around. A man can build an ak-47 with little machinery required. One can cast bullets, make powder, and manufacture shells easily. Now if you think the drug war is futile, imagine the gun war. Prohibition only makes items profitable. You will hurt more than help with these kind of laws. Enjoy your police state.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • SHAWN_RITTIMAN
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  

    • Thanks Shawn, you know I love guns and will defend anybody's right to own them. Maybe someday the human mind will change to a better respect for the law and fellow humans, but until that day I feel these kind of weapons are best in the hands of the military.

    • 3 years ago
  • ras_menelik
  • ras_menelik
  • ras_menelik
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • kennymotown:

      The P-90 IS fucking nasty, but the AK is still a great weapon.

      You can throw the damn thing in the mud and it will STILL fire, plus it's got a longer range than the P-90.

    • 3 years ago
  • SHAWN_RITTIMAN
    • 0
      SHAWN_RITTIMAN  

    • If you are legal to and enjoy it I don't see anything wrong with it. I have fired many weapons and enjoy doing so. I have no felonies or violent crimes in my past. I also live in the sticks, big cities are a whole different story. You have to have a pretty extensive background check to get the full auto license here, and they are only available in limited amounts per year. I understand where you are coming from Kenny.

    • 3 years ago
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  

    • I have fired fifty's sixty's m-16s m203s uzzy's ak47s and what I found was that they all put a lot of rounds down range and thats the power of such weapons in a fire fight. What right does a common citizen have in owning a fully automatic weapon such as these.

    • 3 years ago
  • SHAWN_RITTIMAN
    • 0
      SHAWN_RITTIMAN  

    • It isn't about the color or creed of the people I may have to defend myself from, it is about my right to do so how I please in relation to the local laws. I dealt with guns and owners on a daily basis at the pawn shop I worked at for 6 1/2 years here in Medford Oregon. For now we can own any assault, high capacity, and even fully auto(if you wanna pay 1500$ a year for the permit). I love and respect my right to own guns, and earned it by staying somewhat out of trouble. Those that aren't allowed to own them, shouldn't. There are always going to be those that flip out and make it harder on the law abiding citizens ability to own what they want to.

    • 3 years ago
  • Gargaryun
  • TopScruffy
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Gargaryun:

      An M14 looks WAY different.

      I think what you meant to say is what's the difference between an A-15 and an M-16.

      And yeah, I'd like to know to. My guess is that one is the civilian version and one's the military version?

    • 3 years ago
  • TopScruffy
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  

    • Nobody needs an assault weapon for hunting, if the deer had guns maybe an assault weapon would be required. The extremist on the gun issue are making this an issue, what the hell does anybody need an assault weapon other than killing a lot of people at one time. F**k You NRA.

    • 3 years ago
  • PatrioticAstronaut
    • 0
      PatrioticAstronaut  
    • kennymotown:

      1. Freedom of speech, of the press, Freedom of Religion, and of assembly; right to petition.

      2.Right to protect all rights.

      3.Protection from quartering of troops.

      4.Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

      5. due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

      6. Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

      7.Civil trial by jury.

      8. Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

      9. Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

      10.Powers of States and people.

    • 3 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • kennymotown:

      The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

      BTW using most of the weapons prohibited under the 1994 "assault weapons" ban to hunt with would land you in jail since most use an underpowered round by hunting standards.

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • kennymotown:

      The AK round is large only in comparison to other assault rifle rounds.

      That’s because the assault rifle itself has been properly defined by the US military as

      “ short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges”

      http://gunfax.com/aw.htm

      As soon as you compare the 7.62x39mm round to a rifle caliber hunting round you’ll realize it’s not that powerful. Case in point when you compare the “large” 7.62 to the relatively small .243 Winchester you’d realize the 6.2mm .243 Winchester round flies twice as fast as the 7.62, has considerably more energy and has over twice the effective range of the 7.62. Lastly the 6.2 weights less than half as much as the 7.62.

      Like I said before the 7.62 is just a heavy bullet in comparison to other assault rifle rounds. As soon as you compare it a true rifle round, like say a .30-06, the 7.62 is completely outclassed.

      In the end a hunter wants to make an accurate shot with a bullet that has good qualities. The 7.62, which is comparable to a 30-30 can get the job done. The distinction to be made is in the capacity of either round to deliver an accurate shot with good force, and unfortunately the 30-30 and 7.62 are extremely limited in that role.

    • 3 years ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  

    • it's a catch-22 if Obama dose his job on isolating the Mexican Connection, the violence Will spill north of the border Ala Scarface after all the cartels arms stash is in the US!

      if it's Business as usual then Meth super labs and Mexican Opiates will do the carnage..........

    • 3 years ago
  • ClipsFC
    • 0
      ClipsFC  

    • I agree with Mikey.. I am troubled that there are guns all around us that are illegal and often used to take lives or property. We do need a way to protect our rights as citizens. I can't see me having a semi-automatic to protect my home but I surely want my hand gun locked away in the event I ever need it. I have a license and that license has to be renewed every 12 months in my state. Background check, no felonies and always current ID and address. But that's for legal guns. Regulate bullets? Could be, but would that not be the next commodity on the black market (such as the guns themselves)

    • 3 years ago
  • Mikeysfake1
    • 0
      Mikeysfake1  

    • I'm the kind of guy who worries that all kinds of mexican cartels have them but no one in America is willing to keep them around the house. Seems like we're asking for it.

    • 3 years ago
  • Herbal_Minded
    • 0
      Herbal_Minded  

    • I'm kind of torn on this issue. I'm as liberal as they come, except when it comes to gun control. I like my guns. Its a safety net for me living in a high crime city as Miami. I do not own any assault rifles mainly because i don't need one. The problem i have with outlawing assault rifles is that all it will do is guarantee that the bad guys will be the only ones with AK's. If the time comes that i feel the need to own an assault rifle i need to be able to buy it in a store not on the street.

      My somewhat simplistic solution; track and regulate/restrict the sale of bullets.

      People decide to kill, the gun is usually the choice, the bullet completes the action.

    • 3 years ago
  • Ayahuasca2012
  • Nazzareno
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  
    • Image

    • Running for president in last year's Democratic primaries, Barack Obama promised to restore a federal ban on certain semiautomatic assault guns—a position that's still on the White House Web site. The ban was originally passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 1994 and lapsed five years ago. In recent years the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has also lifted virtually all restrictions on imports of foreign-made assault weapons, permitting a flood of cheap Romanian, Bulgarian and other Eastern European AK-47s to enter the country, according to gun-control groups. "There's been an absolute deluge of these weapons," says Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center.

      But Obama and top White House aides have all but abandoned the issue. Emanuel helped orchestrate passage of the original assault-weapons ban when he worked in the Clinton White House. Now he and other White House strategists have decided they can't afford to tangle with the National Rifle Association at a time when they're pushing other priorities, like economic renewal and health-care reform, say congressional officials who have raised the matter. (According to his office, Emanuel couldn't be reached for comment because he was observing the Passover holiday.) A White House official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal strategy, says, "There isn't support in Congress for such a ban at this time." Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, says, "The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," pointing to $2 billion in new funding for state and local law enforcement in the stimulus package.

      Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, is one of those who are impatient with their party's silence. She has reason to be: a gunman firing randomly on a Long Island commuter train on Dec. 7, 1993, killed her husband, Dennis, and severely injured her son, Kevin. But when she pressed Obama transition officials to take up the issue, they were clear about their priorities: "They told me that's not for now, that's for later."

    • 3 years ago
  • Mikeysfake1
more from Community:
from the community

top videos