Responses to Atlanta Journal's stance on AWB


PDA






Raistlin
August 1, 2004, 10:51 AM
Well, you know the editors at the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation just had to put in their two cents on the AWB, but I'll bet they weren't expecting the response...

The Atlanta Journal-Consitution
Letters to the Editor
Sunday, August 1, 2004

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/letters/index.html (registration req'd).

ASSAULT WEAPONS
Responses to "Keep doors closed to assault weapons," Editorial, July 25

Criminals unlikely to abide by ban

If I didn't know better, your editorial would make me think an "assault rifle" is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle that looks scary. Indeed, that's the criterion the congressmen in charge of enacting the ban used when it started.

Real assault rifles, capable of fully automatic fire, are not among the weapons banned under the 1994 act. Liberals call the banned semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" to play on people's emotions while hoping the people remain ignorant enough to buy their line.

Does anyone think criminals will stop and consider which weapons are banned and which aren't before committing crimes? They certainly won't seek guns that are banned because they look scary. Instead, they will go for something that is illegal due to its functioning -- a real assault rifle, not the liberal version of one.


Gun stand teaches politicians a lesson

The issue is not which guns criminals have, but what arms citizens have for defending their families and property against criminals and henchmen of crooked politicians.

The semi-automatic ban was passed under questionable circumstances in 1993. President Clinton admitted it was the biggest factor why so many of his friends, like former U.S. Rep. Buddy Darden, were not re-elected in 1994. The U.S. House of Representatives repealed the ban in 1996 by a comfortable margin. Bob Dole blocked the repeal in the Senate, and that was the end of his political career.

It's taken 10 years, but politicians are learning that when you side with the anti-gunners, voters throw you out of office. We want to see which congressmen from Georgia vote for the semi-auto ban now.


Guns for us, too

Criminals can always get assault weapons -- and do. So why can't qualified U.S. citizens have them, too?


Confiscated guns were totally legal

Your editorial reports that "In April, Italian officials intercepted more than 8,000 AK-47 assault rifles smuggled out of the Romanian port of Constanta bound to a gun dealer in Georgia."

The firearms were not smuggled. As widely reported at the time by, among others, the Associated Press and even the gun control advocates of the Violence Policy Center, the firearms were properly documented and legal for importation, lawful modification and re-sale as parts of lawful rifles.

The gun control debate asks life-and-death questions. Those who enter that debate with disregard for the facts -- especially journalists and celebrities -- are simply playing with other people's lives.


NRA members hardly 'extreme'

I resent your implication that the National Rifle Association is an "extreme" gun lobby and its members are terrorists.

I am a member of the NRA. I enjoy competing in rifle matches. They require a lot of conditioning and practice to shoot effectively. The people that I have met who compete in this sport are NRA members and are the most safety-conscious and law-abiding citizens you could ever meet.

If you want to debate this issue, stick to the facts. If you want to write about extremist organizations, investigate the anti-gun lobby, whose real objectives are to disarm America. Wouldn't the terrorists love that?


There were no letters supporting the paper's opinion. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Responses to Atlanta Journal's stance on AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tamara
August 1, 2004, 11:12 AM
Sometimes the people that voted for McKinney forget that they're almost completely surrounded by the people that voted for McDonald, Gingrich, and Barr, and that there are no fortified checkpoints at the various crossings of the 285 moat... ;)

(Heck, I was able to infiltrate as far in town as Virginia Highlands, and remained there, undetected, for years! :D )

316SS
August 1, 2004, 01:14 PM
Raistlin-

This response was authored by you? If so, bravo. This is the kind of stuff we need printed: to the point, easy to understand, factual yet containing powerful emotional language, 2A never mentioned (its not a compelling argument for nost people! Sadly!).

I particularly liked this:

The gun control debate asks life-and-death questions. Those who enter that debate with disregard for the facts -- especially journalists and celebrities -- are simply playing with other people's lives.

Great stuff!

316SS

Raistlin
August 1, 2004, 07:51 PM
Sorry, 316SS, but I can't claim credit - and that's the really great part! All these responses came from AJC readers. :D

Malone LaVeigh
August 1, 2004, 08:32 PM
Liberals call the banned semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" to play on people's emotions while hoping the people remain ignorant enough to buy their line. It's lines like this that really frost me. That stupid writer can be thanked for reminding a large segment of the electorate the position they're supposed to take regarding gun control. The Bradys couldn't have done a better job.

Substitute "gun control extremists" for "liberals" and it would have been a decent letter. If you are going to go about making us more enemies, please don't bother.

deanf
August 1, 2004, 08:47 PM
Malone LaVeigh, that sentence you quoted is factual. I guess I don't understand your quarrel with it.

Warren
August 1, 2004, 08:54 PM
I'm not seeing the problem with it either. Though "gun contollers" would have been much more precise.

Standing Wolf
August 1, 2004, 09:30 PM
If you are going to go about making us more enemies, please don't bother.

There's no need to worry about leftist extremists' feelings: they're not only paranoid about them themselves, but completely oblivious to everyone else's feelings. Better just to tell the truth.

Malone LaVeigh
August 2, 2004, 02:39 AM
I guess I don't understand your quarrel with it. Then try hard. That's why we've been losing as long as I can remember.

deanf
August 2, 2004, 04:43 AM
Oh wait. Are you saying that not all liberals call the banned guns assault weapons? (Maybe you're a liberal?) Are you trying (unseucessfully) to make the point that not all liberals are gun grabbers?

No matter.

It still doesn't change the fact that it is factually correct that "Liberals call the banned semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" to play on people's emotions while hoping the people remain ignorant enough to buy their line."

goalie
August 2, 2004, 05:15 AM
Actually, I know quite a few liberals who are not gun-grabbers.

MP5
August 2, 2004, 07:59 AM
Actually, I know quite a few liberals who are not gun-grabbers.

And recall that "liberal" correctly means "forward thinking, progressive, open-minded." Liberals and Democrats aren't the same thing.

Anyway, those newspaper responses are good reminders not to simply sit here and preach to the converted, but to write to editors, etc. and let our voices be heard too. Show the undecided people that RKBA advocates aren't some tiny wacko fringe but a large, politically active, and mostly normal group of regular citizens with a lot of facts and history on their side.

If you enjoyed reading about "Responses to Atlanta Journal's stance on AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!