just so we're on the same page here, the assualt rifle ban by legal defintion is fully auto/3 round burst with collapsible butt stock and mil-spec flash suppresor with bayonet holder right?
The uneducated keep using the term "assault rifle", which is wholly incorrect regarding the limitations of gun sales for the average citizen.
Civilians cannot own an "assault rifle" without the proper license. Everyone else, the 99% of those who do not have such a license, own or wish to own semiautomatic rifles that resemble military grade hardware in appearance only. These are not "assault rifles".
So what the purveyors of the so called "assault weapons ban" wish to to
do with the re-instatement of the ban is to prevent civilians from owning simple semi-automatic rifles. Everyone needs to understand what the word means and what it represents because the ban shouldn't affect these normal semi-automatic rifles, yet they include them in the ban.
That's the issue with those against the ban, for those of you who obviously cannot understand what is going on here.
Before everybody gets all giddy over Obama "signing a law to allow guns to be carried in National Parks" you should also understand all the facts:
1. The Bush Administration originally lifted the ban on firearms carry in National Parks due to the difficulty of traveling between state and federal lands because of the differences in their gun laws.
2. A Federal Judge blocked the lifting of the ban by the Bush Administration.
3. Obama's administration declined to appeal the judge's ruling.
4. Congress passed the law allowing it, but the focus of the law was NOT gun carry in national parks; it was a Credit Card Reform Act, which was BIG political points at the time due to the bailout packages and related financial issues at the time. Carrying guns in nat'l parks was simply an item shoe-horned into this act, of which the Pres would have never even considered striking down due to the actual credit card issues the law primarily focused on.
5. Obama signed it into law with no mention whatsoever that it had anything to do with allowing gun carry in nat'l parks. The media lept on that, then Obama subsequently made passing mentions of it because of the political value, nothing more.
Same story for being able to carry on Amtrak trains, it was tagged onto a transportation appropriations bill.
Do you really think the President who disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling on gun bans would have ever passed a law that was solely aimed at allowing gun carry in nat'l parks or on trains? Please.
Romney is no better, in spite of his recent, questionably timed cuddling up to gun rights advocates.
The fear tactics. I've been hearing this bullshit for four years and I'm tired of it.
Worry about something else.
That's up to you to "worry about something else". The rest of us are free to worry about whatever we wish to worry about. I don't remember any law preventing disagreement.