[cuchulainn]

from the Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~1356237,00.htmlKeep assault-weapon controls

President Bush has announced that he supports a federal ban on assault weapons. His administration, therefore, is likely to renew the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban that is set to expire before the end of Bush's term.

Members of the National Rifle Association and other gun-advocate groups, however, have expressed dismay. Some went so far as to threaten to dump Bush in 2004 and elect someone else if he signs a bill extending the prohibition.

That is entirely their choice. But millions of other people support reasonable federal gun control and believe law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights without keeping and trading assault weapons designed for nothing more than killing a lot of people in a short amount of time.

The Post strongly supports the president's decision to stay with a reasonable measure that makes sense and thus continue to control such weapons.

Since 1994, domestic gun manufacturers have been required to cease production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds, except for military or police use. Imports of such weapons already are banned under administrative rules signed by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Assault weapons and clips manufactured before 1994 are "grandfathered" in and can still be possessed and sold.

Banned weapons include AK-47s, the Beretta Ar70, Colt AR-15, Uzis and the TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22.

An AK-47 rifle was used in the recent killing of a 15-year-old boy and wounding of three teenage girls when gunmen opened fire on a packed New Orleans school gym. A TEC-9 was used in the Columbine High School massacre.

Many Second Amendment defenders argue that, while our country is under the threat of terrorist attacks and engaged in war, American citizens should be able to arm themselves with assault weapons. This logic escapes us.

The weapons ban was put into place to save us from ourselves, if you will. It is designed to keep weapons with unusual firepower off the streets so that police won't be outgunned and to help reduce the number of innocent victims in the line of fire when someone decides to shoot up a school or a workplace.

As for fighting terrorism, several branches of the military and law enforcement are assigned to do that. Police also have enhanced firepower to protect the masses. There is no reason to now arm citizens with assault weapons to fight this enemy.

Let's be reasonable. An assault-weapons ban is not an attack on the right to bear arms. It's a reasonable gun-control measure that deserves renewal because there is no good reason for the average citizen to possess such firepower.

Copyright 2003 The Denver P

[COHIBA]

thas what i love, unbiased reporting.

[Henry Bowman]

Baaaaaaaah . . .

[BenW]

Banned weapons include AK-47s, the Beretta Ar70, Colt AR-15, Uzis and the TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22.

An AK-47 rifle was used in the recent killing of a 15-year-old boy and wounding of three teenage girls when gunmen opened fire on a packed New Orleans school gym. A TEC-9 was used in the Columbine High School massacre.


So I guess the ban works. :rolleyes:

[Don Gwinn]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that's an editorial.

Y'know, I could understand arguing that a right to keep and bear arms is detrimental and should be attacked, but to attempt to argue that a ban on weapons does not diminish that right? It's ludicrous.

[cuchulainn]

Yes, it was an editorial

Don, the Brady people have been using that argument for years.

I recall a press release about two years ago (when they were still HCI) decrying the fact that the NRA described them as a "gun ban organization."

You see, they do not actively work to ban all guns (only some), so they are not a "gun ban organization."

By that logic, as long as you can say "ping" (but nothing else), your speech rights have not been violated.

[para.2]

"It's a reasonable gun-control measure that deserves renewal because there is no good reason for the average citizen to possess such firepower."
-or-
It's an unreasonable gun-ban measure that deserves to go away because there is no good reason for the average citizen not to possess such firepower.:fire:

[Rawlings]

This logic escapes us.

Should read:

Logic escapes us.

[Elmer Snerd]

I'm all for keeping assault weapon controls...

triggers, safeties, selector switches, magazine releases...

After all, an assault weapon with no controls is a paperweight.

:D

[Standing Wolf]

Now you know why I don't subscribe to either of the Denver newspapers.

[Lone_Gunman]

Bush may be a genius.

He just received an endorsement from a liberal newspaper editor because he supports a bill that he knows will never be sent to him in the first place.

[Jeff Thomas]

As for fighting terrorism, several branches of the military and law enforcement are assigned to do that. Police also have enhanced firepower to protect the masses. There is no reason to now arm citizens with assault weapons to fight this enemy.

And, I assume these would be the same military and law enforcement authorities that couldn't get the job done on September 11, 2001, correct?

Not an insult ... just fact. They can't be everywhere, no matter how foggy a liberal's mind becomes.

Regards from TX

[Tamara]

I have a feeling that I'll never feel more awful saying "I told you so!" than when a newer, harsher, permanent AWB gets passed. :( After all, it's been given public approval by the titular head of the GOP now.

[BowStreetRunner]

I used to agree with that "reasonable gun controls" BS until I started caring and getting involved.
Im glad I woke up from that coma
That is a convinving arguement for people for are neutral on the issue......
"The AWB keeps out dangerous guns made only for killing a lot of people fast"
that arguement sounds good too, until you think that some guns not banned by the AWB can kill just as fast, they just dont have pistol grips, flash hiders, and a bayonet lug (not much logic there)......and if you carry the above arguement to its logical conclusion you end up banning all guns
BSR

[Tamara]

that arguement sounds good too, until you think that some guns not banned by the AWB can kill just as fast, they just dont have pistol grips, flash hiders, and a bayonet lug (not much logic there)......and if you carry the above arguement to its logical conclusion you end up banning all guns

Well, uh, yeah. That's the plan, see.

When you show Suzy Soccermom a Pre-Ban and Post-Ban AR, she's not going to say "Oh, gosh! This law is silly! You can have your flash hider and bayonet lug back!". She's going to say "Oh my God! An Assault Weapons Loophole! Ban the ones without bayonet lugs and flash hiders, too!" :uhoh:

[Elmer Snerd]

that arguement sounds good too, until you think that some guns not banned by the AWB can kill just as fast, they just dont have pistol grips, flash hiders, and a bayonet lug (not much logic there)......and if you carry the above arguement to its logical conclusion you end up banning all guns

I've had a similar discussion before with "eee-vil black rifles--eeeeeeww!" types. I try to start with the definitions of semi- and fully- automatic, that "assault weapon" is a manipulative anti-invented term designed to elicit an emotional response, an "assault rifle" is a selective fire military rifle, the media will often report semiautos as "machine guns", etc. I try to dig up pictures of Mini-14s or some such with wooden and eeeevil black plastic stocks, and emphasize that the internal bang-parts are exactly the same. I reiterate that if it goes bang only once with each trigger pull, it's a semiauto civilian rifle, no matter how much it resembles a military rifle.

Sometimes I get them to at least think about the issue instead of parroting "Assault Weapons BAD!". Sometimes their eyes just glaze over, but I keep trying.

[Waitone]

I hate to inject logic into a discussion, but can anyone out there point to a study that measures the AWB to relevant statistics hopefully measuring how well the ban performed in its intended function?

I know a while back the DOJ released a preliminary study which concluded the AWB pretty much had no effect. I'm looking for hard statistics, recently developed to use against organs such as USAToday.

[Elmer Snerd]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/fuopr.htm
This is the "0.7% of crime guns were purchased at gun shows" article.

[Sam Adams]

"that arguement sounds good too, until you think that some guns not banned
by the AWB can kill just as fast, they just dont have pistol grips, flash hiders,
and a bayonet lug (not much logic there)......and if you carry the above
arguement to its logical conclusion you end up banning all guns"

I would suggest that the best argument to use with the ill-informed morons who favor renewal of the AWB is to point out 3 simple facts:

1) The AWB did NOT remove a single firearm from the possession of any previously legal owner of those weapons - they are ALL still out there "on the street."

2) The AWB only governs cosmetic features on certain weapons. Literally millions of functionally identical weapons have been legally produced and sold since 1994. They have been added to the stock of weapons "on the street."

3) Crime has not skyrocketed since then, despite the lack of any confiscation of "assault weapons" and the addition of millions of functionally identical weapons. Given that crime reduction was the avowed purpose of this law, what possible goal is served by renewing the AWB?

Naturally, this argument does not even address the most fundamental issue, the (un)constitutionality of the AWB - but it does negate the most often vocalized argument used by proponents of renewal.