Do you support Obama's campaign to ban assault weapons?

McArthur's Restaurant - 5412 W. Madison St.

Opinion: Streetbeat

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Angelic Jones


Do you support Obama's campaign to ban assault weapons; if so why, do you think he will be successful?


Jeffrey Brown

"Yeah, I am in support of it, and I think it has a good chance of passing. I think they should be banned because don't nobody need that many bullets. I've been shot up twice, and something needs to be done."


Peggy Newman


"I think it's a good idea that he is doing it, but I think without the support of the neighborhood and stuff, it's not going to be successful. But I think he will make an impact, so I think it's a good thing."


Verla Friend


"Yes, because those (guns) are not just for protection, and they kill more than one person at a time. If they can get rid of those, so many people wouldn't get killed. I think he will be successful in getting them banned. It's going to be hard, but I think he will."

Tiara Hardy

"Yes, because it's going to stop most of the crime and violence in Chicago, so I think it will be a good outcome. I know he will be successful in getting it done. He has been successful in a lot of stuff people didn't think he could do. People down him in what he try to do, but I have faith in him. He wouldn't be the president if he couldn't."


Corey Williams


"I think it's a good idea, but I don't think he's going to get too far with it because as soon as they get confiscated, someone else is going to put them right back there out on the streets. Until he gets the inside straightened out, it's not going to work."

Barbara Frazier

"Yes I am. I don't think they should be in the hands of everyone. They should only be in the hands of the military. It seems like they come into the country, or however they are getting them. The gangs are getting them so easily, and innocent kids are getting killed. I think he will get the ban.


Love the News?

Become our partner in independent community journalism

Thanks for turning to Austin Weekly News and We love our thousands of digital-only readers. Now though we're asking you to partner up in paying for our reporters and photographers who report this news. It had to happen, right?

On the plus side, we're giving you a simple way, and a better reason, to join in. We're now a non-profit -- Growing Community Media -- so your donation is tax deductible. And signing up for a monthly donation, or making a one-time donation, is fast and easy.

No threats from us. The news will be here. No paywalls or article countdowns. We're counting on an exquisite mix of civic enlightenment and mild shaming. Sort of like public radio.

Claim your bragging rights. Become a digital member.

Donate Now

Reader Comments

67 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 11:54 AM

Yes, with police brutality occurring, that wouldn't be a bad idea.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 11:53 AM

Yes, I call for disarming politicians (and their bodyguards), because they are proposing gun bans on us. Lawmakers should be subject to gun bans, ObamaCare and any other laws that are imposed on us. These politicians are mere mortals like us.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 11:50 AM

Silly Gun Lovers, We have/had the Brady Bill, named after a man who took a bullet for Reagan. It isn't about conservatives and liberals. Instead, it's about another useless gun law. If Prohibition didn't and the Brady Bill don't work nationally, then nothing else will. Either hands must be chopped off or murderers must be executed. Those are the only proven methods.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 11:48 AM

You are preaching what others should believe. :D

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 11:47 AM

Silly Gun Lovers, no where did I say "Everyone must believe in God and/or Jesus". :) Yes, Jesus is God. Yes, Jesus wrote the Bible. :)

Silly Gun lovers  

Posted: April 24th, 2013 11:07 PM

Oh, and Rudy, check your facts, Jesus did not write the bible. Please educate yourself.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 24th, 2013 11:04 PM

I'm at least glad to see that there are 3, instead of 2 people in on this discussion. I was starting to think that no one else reading the austin weekly news had an opinion, or cared.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 24th, 2013 11:03 PM

Rudy, the only reason US gun bans are symbolic is because they've only been regional. As pointed out to exhaustion, the US has never had a national ban, so you couldn't possibly know that it would be symbolic or ineffective. Historical examples show otherwise. You keep calling to disarm politicians and bodyguards, but that's silly, because it wouldn't change the fact that there are still limitless guns flowing freely into criminal hands. Next you'll be calling to disarm the police.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 24th, 2013 10:58 PM

Rudy, you can argue all you want about Jesus, but that is only your belief. To many others Jesus was a profit. To many other religions Jesus is just a person. You can believe what you want, but that don't mean you have the final word on what or who is or is not god. All you have is your faith, which is fine, but people have other faiths too, and you're in no position to preach to other people what they should believe.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 24th, 2013 10:56 PM

Only a portion of the government won't listen, and that's the far right conservatives that have ideological and monitory ties with the NRA. Why do certain senators oppose background checks? because it's bad for business, it's bad for the gun industry.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 10:56 AM

The government won't listen, because it isn't required to, as shown by the continuous Democratic and Republican elections. Remove the politicians' guns and bodyguards!

Suzanne Kaufman  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 10:00 AM

It's absurd already that we as American citizens can't get our government to listen to us. 90% of the population wants a simple law that requires better background checks. How did the Boston bombers get their guns and ammunition? Maybe if one of the Senators or their family members were disabled or their life taken away by guns things would change.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 8:27 AM

US gun bans are symbolic. US gun bans, like any other ban, are unenforceable. Ban the murderers, not the guns!

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 8:24 AM

The Bible was written by God, not man made religion. Jesus is God, which has nothing to do with man made religion.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 8:23 AM

Jesus is God! Jesus isn't a profit.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 8:02 PM

Plus, bans are not symbolic, because they've actually reduced crimes in places that have implemented them. Keeping guns in the US because of the misinterpretation/deliberate distortion of an amendment is the kind of greed driven symbolism that's going to get more people killed. I rather have gun crimes greatly reduced through bans, even if a few were left over, than let everyone have one to "symbolically" allow everyone to have one even if it doesn't make real impact.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 7:55 PM

Plus, you don't need to believe in god to be a good person, you just need common decency. Religion has caused more harm in human history than good.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 7:46 PM

In Christianity, "Jesus is God"... In other Religions, he is not. For Christians, he's god, for the Muslims, he's merely a profit, for everyone else, he's just a guy. But for arguments sake, let's say Jesus is god, Jesus didn't write the Bible, his apostles did. Then the bible was added to, "interpretations" were formed etc... Deductive logic suggests that the fact that "god" is defined by any particular religion means that those definitions are institutional structures.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 2:04 PM

Liberal politicians are part of the problem too, because they want remove our rights to gun ownership, while they still have guns and bodyguards. Removing guns from society is symbolic, because guns can never be completely removed. People tried with Prohibition, which led to even more crimes. Punish the evil doers instead!

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 2:02 PM

Jesus is God. God wrote the Bible.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 2:00 PM

Winston-Salem, you are actually describing yourself!

Winston Salem from Chicago  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 9:42 PM

Rudy, you epitomize dumb. God did not write the Bible, don't you at least know that much about the scriptures?

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 8:26 PM

What's more idealist? Trying to get everyone to act out the principles of he bible? Or creating measures to limit the flow of guns into society? "Free will" already rules the first one out. The second one can be implemented and has a proven track record, though I don't believe conservative politicians, gun lobbyists and the NRA will ever let that happen because there's too much money to be made in it.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 8:13 PM

Getting rid of politicians guns is exactly an act of "symbolic idealism", because it would do nothing to tackle the gun problem on the streets. And the bible was not written by "god". I can respect a persons personal belief in god, but the bible was written by man. Also your argument is also based on the assumption that Jesus is god. Jesus was a real person, but in the Kuran (which pre-dates the bible) he was a profit, nothing more nothing less... so they are all institutional documents.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 8:08 PM

I understand free will perfectly fine. People will do what people will do, and that's precisely the point. Lets say we have 10 teens that are unstable, they have a tendency to react violently to certain situations... if you put ten guns in front of them, they'll use them. If they don't have the guns they'll use their fists. What's the better option? They are all acting on free will, but what they have access to determines how that free will is expressed.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 17th, 2013 8:48 AM

The Bible was written by God. It more people obeyed God's laws, there wouldn't be a need another symbolic man made law.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 17th, 2013 8:47 AM

Yes, religion is man made. Having a personal relationship with Jesus isn't.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 17th, 2013 8:45 AM

You don't understand free will. No man made law will stop free. It failed with Prohibition and will fail with a national gun ban too. Just because something "works" in the UK doesn't automatically mean it will "work" in the US. Generally, 17 year olds have guns. I'm not giving them something they have. It's good that you want ride the country of guns, but until the politicians give up their guns and bodyguards, it's more symbolic idealism.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 17th, 2013 12:25 AM

to use it responsibly. The bible was written by people, and defined as a structure to abide by. Sorry but religion is an institutional structure which ever way you look at it... unless you have blind faith.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 17th, 2013 12:23 AM

I've already explained how a national ban works, and have also explained it's not dependent on criminals obeying laws... I don't know how many more times I need to explain it until you understand. Just because I see the need to ride the country of guns doesn't mean I don't hold people accountable too. Just because a 17 year old packs heat illegally, isn't exactly a good argument to give every 17 year old the freedom to own guns. You're assuming that every 17 year old will have the judgement to

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 2:28 PM

God isn't an institutional church structured defined by man. Each of us can read the Bible, for himself/herself. In fact, Jesus said to worship the Father in silent, not build churches that usually glorify preachers with their own agenda.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 2:24 PM

Generally, 17 year old people carry guns. Legal or not, banned or not, they still will.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 2:23 PM

Anti-gun people make the gun accountable, not the person. How will you defend yourself when Obama's (or Hillary's) people call you a terrorist and drag you out of your house?

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 2:22 PM

Criminals don't obey gun laws. No ban of any sort is going to stop someone from using a gun for any purpose. Because you are for banning guns, let's call on all politicians, bodyguards, military and police NOT to have a gun for any purpose.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 2:15 PM

situations where guns have a negative effect. So your saying 17 year olds should be allow to carry guns now? It's ironic that you can't legally drink a beer in this country until you're 21, but you're allow to own a weapon that can kill with great ease and little training by the time you're 18.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 2:13 PM

he could have just as easily not had the time to draw his gun, had his gun taken off him and used to hurt him or other people, he could have fired and hit other people around him, his gun could have been stolen in a burglary and used of other crimes, it could be found by a younger family member who may accidentally shoot and kill either him/herself or friends etc... The thing is, pro gun people can only think of the limited times where a gun may be useful without seeing that vast amount of

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 2:09 PM

I'm not moving to the UK because I have family and a life here, and I belief this country needs people to fight for it. A national ban has more of a chance of working, because there's an actual working model... Pouring more guns into society, so criminals have a limitless supply has not worked so far and never will. Our understanding of god is inseparable from the institution we are preached to about it, because our concept of him or her is a institutional structure. If Trayvon Martin was armed

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 8:56 AM

If Trayvon Martin was armed, he'd still be alive today.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 8:55 AM

Silly Gun Lovers, generally, the people are dependent on preachers coddling and making excuses for them, which is very different than depending on God.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 8:54 AM

Silly Gun Lovers, a national ban won't work in the US! The only way to stop violence is either cut hands off or execute the murderers!

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 8:52 AM

Silly Gun Lovers, since it's so safe there, are you moving to the UK? :)

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 10:32 PM

Rudy, National gun bans DO work, it's fact, and people in the UK have free will. The British government also have guns, and the public don't, yet gun crime has been drastically reduced because of the ban. The fact is, the US has never tried a national ban, and gun violence is getting worse, the UK has, and gun violence have been greatly reduced. There's a difference between "first world countries" and "first class countries".

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 10:28 PM

Thugs already walk around with knives. You can do a lot less damage with a knife in comparison to a gun. The Newtown killer manages to take 26 lives, while the person who attacked 20 school children in China with a knife around the same time didn't manage to kill any of them. As horrific as both these tragedies are, I'll take survivors over fatalities. I'd obviously choose no weapons, but I'd rather criminals only have knives, as oppose to knives and guns.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 10:22 PM

Rudy, People in Austin that become dependent on the bible do just that... they wait for the action from god, and preach/march a little, when they should be getting involved. A number of preachers on the west side have made problems worse where they've out rightly told the black community to disregard and revolt against the law, because it's the "white mans law". This type of ideology only makes the societal divide worse and place responsibility for change on someone else. It's a crutch.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 3:34 PM

Silly Gun Lovers, the short sighted bans don't work, because of people's free will. The government, others and you can't stop free will. Are you moving to the UK? When do Obama, Quinn, Emanuel, other politicians and preachers give up their bodyguards and guns? When do they post window signs stating "I don't own a gun"?

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 3:32 PM

What's next? Scissors, knives and baseball bats?

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 3:31 PM

Forgetting the Bible is why Austin and other areas are messed up.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 3:15 PM

they have a substantially lower level of gun crimes. Forget the bible... if the bible was the answer, Austin would be one of the safest places in Chicago, considering the number of churches that are in Austin. We need to can the culture and we need to put an end to the limitless supply of guns.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 3:13 PM

Rudy, you're short sighted because you're only thinking about bandaging the problem. The bans you stated didn't work because they were regional. I've already covered this more than once, we need a "NATIONAL" ban, which has NEVER happened in the US, and which is why the UK ban worked. The UK were obviously intelligent enough to recognize that only banning guns in London would mean that criminals would get more from Leeds, or Liverpool, or Manchester etc... So they banned them everywhere, and now

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 9:03 AM

Silly Gun Lovers prefers to continue the failed Jane Byrne Chicago Gun Ban (1982) and the failed Brady Ban (1995?) under new names. Goody it (supposedly) works in the UK. We are in the US. The US and UK are no longer first rate countries. The cycle of violence will continue with or without gun bans (i.e. local or national). If people truly want a end to violence (which encompasses more than guns), then it's time to execute murderers (like the Bible says).

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 8:58 AM

Silly Gun Lovers, you are the short sighted one, who thinks another gun ban solves the problem. Again, we are in the US. Are you going to wait for a police officer to rescue you from crime?

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 14th, 2013 2:52 AM

and Rudy would rather continue with failed strategies than look across the pond at what's actually worked, and for what? Ego? Fear? National pride? You guys think a Glock in you holster is going criminals off your back, stop a stray bullet? Think again, and think bigger. All it does is forward the NRAs agenda, and puts money in the pockets of the same people who produce the same weapons that fall into criminal hands. This cycle of violence will continue for ever without a ban.

Silly guns lovers  

Posted: April 14th, 2013 2:42 AM

a nation wide ban. Putting more guns in society is not going to make the gun violence problem better. You think criminals are going to be sacred, they also may become more trigger happy if they think their lives maybe in danger, plus many times its innocent victims in the cross fire that get hit, and are not the initial target, of suicides, or kids finding the parents gun, or some Good Samaritan shooting the wrong person... You, like Rudy, are being short sighted, and people like you cont...

Silly guns lovers  

Posted: April 14th, 2013 2:37 AM

Milly, I already said it once, but you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it, so ill say it again. The ban does not assume that criminals will turn in their guns. What is does do is stop the continuing supply of guns into criminal hand through straw arms deals. All guns were legal once, before they became illegal, think about it. Cops cease guns on a regular basis, and the criminal supply would dwindle if they didn't have means of replenishing it, but that only happens with a cont...

Milly from Chicago  

Posted: April 13th, 2013 9:16 AM

I also want to post a question to Silly gun lovers, how many criminals do you suppose will turn in their weapons if yet another gun law is passed? I mean these laws they are trying to and have passed really only apply to the law abiding citizens. I can see it now, lawned passed making it illegal to own a weapon of any kind, and picture this now, the long lines stretch from Austin, to Cicero ave, North ave to Harrison , criminals waiting to turn in their weapons, because there is a new law!

Milly from Chicago  

Posted: April 13th, 2013 9:04 AM

I totally agree with Ruby, and I want to add, we are the only state, which prohibits its citizens from protecting themselves by allowing us to carry a conceal weapon. If criminals even thought you had your own weapon they would think twice about approching anyone with a weapon. I bet there isn't a police in Illinois who would leave his weapon at the office after he is off duty. We are sitting ducks for criminals.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 11th, 2013 11:01 PM

Rudy, you're being short sighted. You can't murder your way to a gun violence free society. Yes, this is the US, but lets not be so egotistical that we can't learn from a country that had similar problems that figured out how to deal with it in a real way with positive results. It's not like we're comparing Iraq to the US or something... both the US and UK are first world countries.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 11th, 2013 9:21 AM

When Obama, Quinn and Emanuel turn in their guns and bodyguards, along with placing a sign on their windows stating "I do NOT own a gun", then and only then will I advocate a nationwide ban on guns (which won't work anyway).

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 11th, 2013 9:18 AM

Silly gun lovers, you're being short sighted. We are in the US, not the UK. It's time to start executing the murderers, like the Bible says!

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 10th, 2013 11:43 PM

Rudy, you're being short sighted. Cops constantly retrieve guns from criminals, but criminals keep replenishing their supply because they can get guns from straw sellers. If you ban guns nationally, you put criminals in a situation where it's harder for them to rebuild their supply after the cops have stripped them of guns. It's a long term strategy, but the only one that will work. The UK did just that, and it worked just that way.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 10th, 2013 12:10 PM

Criminals do NOT obey gun bans! Let's ban the criminals! "We" have the Brady Ban and the "Jane Byrne" law, which do NOT work, because criminals do NOT obey laws.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: April 10th, 2013 12:08 PM

Silly gun lovers (which I am not), do NOT work in the US. If gun bans work, then let's disarm Quinn's, Emanuel's and Obama's bodyguards first.

Silly gun lovers  

Posted: April 9th, 2013 8:46 PM

Rudy. Gun bans DO work. Look at the UK. Since the mass school shooting in a Scottish in the 90's there hasn't been another school shooting since hands guns and guns with cartridges were banned, and over all gun crime has dropped dramatically. The regular beat cops there don't even have guns, and that says something. I agree with resident in that there needs to be a nation wide ban that covers all gun types. Hand guns alone kill more people in the US annually, than gun do in Iraq.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: March 19th, 2013 9:25 AM

Ban the people firing the guns! Gun bans do NOT work!


Posted: March 19th, 2013 1:47 AM

Most shootings are performed with handguns, so even though I support assault weapons bans, it needs to become a handgun ban too.

Rudy from Chicago  

Posted: March 6th, 2013 1:18 PM

No, because it's another non-solution that sounds great. When every politician loses their guns and bodyguards, I will gladly support this otherwise bogus ban.

Dex from Centreville, VA  

Posted: March 6th, 2013 12:25 PM

This is why I voted for John McCain in 2008. I saw this coming. The "assault weapon" issue is a scam. I would be willing to bet that all of those in favor of the ban, above, think he wants to ban machineguns. Here's a clue: NOT ONE of the firearms in the ban is a military-issue weapon. They're just normal civilian guns with military paintjobs.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2019

To view the full print edition of the Austin Weekly News 2019 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Austin and Garfield Park.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad