Excellent AWB editorial


PDA






aut2no
August 9, 2004, 09:35 PM
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/9344221.htm?ERIGHTS=6828237809215049073dfw::newslinks@keepandbeararms.com&KRD_RM=4ntooplmsprmspokkkkkkkkmlm|Newslinks|N

Dallas Fort Worth Star Telegram Posted on Sun, Aug. 08, 2004



The gun-law sky is falling?

By J.R. Labbe

Star-Telegram Staff Writer


Chicken Little arrives every four years in a feather-ruffled flurry squawking about some kind of impending doom. This year she is incited to a level of hen-ish hysteria by the encroaching expiration of the federal "assault weapons" ban.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry is all for extending the ban on 19 military-style firearms, coos Chicken Little. He suspended his campaign back in March so he could go to Washington and cast one of the few Senate votes he found time to make in the past year. No one should read anything political into that.

But that bad ol' President Bush, clucks the harried hen, he said he'd sign an extension of the ban, but he isn't doing anything to force those nasty, gun-loving, NRA-co-opted Republicans to bring it to a vote.

Chickie needs to pipe down and revisit what the president did say about the ban, adopted by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1994. Bush said he'd sign the extension if it made it to his desk. He never promised to pressure lawmakers into getting it to that point.

This is just one more example of how hysteria and ignorance can warp understanding of an issue.

The uninformed make audacious claims: "If the ban expires, it will become legal to buy dangerous, rapid-fire guns most commonly seen in action movies."

First, all firearms are dangerous, which is why it is so important to teach children never to think they are toys. But this line from a Statesman Journal editorial, which ran last month in the Salem, Ore., newspaper, equates the firearms covered by the ban with machine guns.

Even if the ban is lifted, John Q. Schnutz still will not be able to purchase fully automatic machine guns, which are highly regulated.

"A tidal wave of assault weapons will soon legally flood the country unless Congress acts quickly to renew expiring federal legislation," screamed the editorial page of Utah's Deseret Sun last month. "Just what we don't need -- more opportunities for deadlier weapons to fall into the hands of criminals -- and more 'play toys' to attract our children's attention."

Gracious. Dilute that rhetoric with some facts, and you find that the guns banned under the Federal Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 are no deadlier than my .22-250 deer rifle.

Chickadees, let's take a breath and do some fact-checking on what the "assault weapons" ban did and did not do.

The 1994 crime bill forbade the manufacture and import of certain guns that Congress defined as "assault weapons."

These firearms were classified by how they looked and not by how they operate. Cosmetic and ergonomic features like telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs, pistol grips and flash suppressors that give the firearms a military-style appearance were banned even though they are mechanically indistinguishable from traditional sporting rifles.

The provision that banned "high-capacity" ammunition magazines is also scheduled to expire Sept. 13, although the House bill calling for the ban's extension does not mention high-capacity magazines.

The ban did not outlaw ownership of semi-automatic guns. Banned "assault weapons" have always been available on the secondary market, and owners of those guns don't break any law by reselling them.

The fact that you don't have to wear body armor and take your kids to school behind a bulletproof shield proves that the preponderance of America's gun owners are responsible, law-abiding people with no interest in committing crime.

Calling these guns the "weapons of choice for criminals" and "weapons whose only purpose is to kill people" reveals deliberate denial of reality. A National Institute of Justice study released in 1999 -- gee, who was president then? -- said exactly the opposite. "Assault weapons" were rarely used to commit murder in this country.

As to the emotion-laden "kill people" assertion: Shooting enthusiasts use military-style firearms to "kill" nothing more than pieces of paper or metal targets. Easy to operate, reliable and accurate, they make sport and competitive shooting fun.

Of course, the anti-gunners cite those same characteristics as something purely evil.

It is interesting to note that Kerry is not as vocal as his more enthusiastic supporters on this issue.

Rural voters in those all-important swing states of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania own guns. Some of them view extending the ban as a step toward more restrictive gun laws that might next target that trusty ol' deer rifle -- which operates exactly like those dreaded "assault weapons."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill "J.R." Labbe is a Star-Telegram senior editorial writer. (817) 390-7599 jrlabbe@star-telegram.com

If you enjoyed reading about "Excellent AWB editorial" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jefnvk
August 10, 2004, 12:32 AM
Rural voters in those all-important swing states of Michigan

Living in Rural Michigan, I can say with all honesty that many hunter-voters do not care about semi-automatic, military styled weapons. My father belongs to a primarialy-shotgunning club. the one that members are normally seen with $2000 guns, and seeing a $10,000 shotgun is no big deal. Real nice guys (one even let me shoot his custom fitted $8000 Italian shotgun :what:), but when they're told that the government doesn't want their sporting clays shotguns, or their deer rifles, they will galdly step up and support banning AWBs. They ignore the fact that:

1. A shotgun will probably be seen as the next deadly weapon. At few yards, i would much rather go up against the 'typical terrorist' spraying an AK-47 from his hip than most of those guys with a shotgun and buckshot.

2. How much of a difference is ther between a Scoped Springfield 1903 or K98 sniper rifle, and our moder day scoped bolt-action deer rifle? My guess is the modern deer rifle is probably more accurate. All of the sudden we're to deer rifles = sniper rifles

3. When those are gone, and all thats left is really Winchester 94 deer rifles, boom, there goes those too. Can't be using those armor piercing .30-30, especially with a gun that was obviously meant to spray from the hip and shoot quick. those big lever action hoops can't have any other reason, can they?

4. Now were down to .22's. Since, I would be willing to bet .22's make up a large portion of firearm deaths, those need to be taken away, also.

Now, if only that chain of steps was logical to everyone.

Non-gunners (notice I did NOT say antis) may say I'm against all reasonable gun control. If we can find a way to restrict access to guns to those that shouldn't have access, such as violent felons, and children (UNDER 18, NO 21 or 25 BS), that doesn't interfere with the owners rights AT ALL, then I'm all for it.

Simply put, we don't take all elderly people's drivers licenses away because they're at a higher risk to cause a wreck, why should I give up my rights because someone might steal my guns and use them in a crime?

Obiwan
August 10, 2004, 09:19 AM
My parents live in Michigan

On a recent visit, we decided to go shooting.

When I opened the case with my AR my Moms first words were "what do you need that for?"

And she loves firearms...another victim of the assault weapons demonization.

But I cured her...I got her to shoot it and she didn't want to put it down.

Get the hint....do the same with curmudgeons at the range...spread the word!

Marnoot
August 10, 2004, 02:02 PM
I like the editorial, only nitpick is there is no Deseret Sun in Utah. Do they mean the Deseret News? The Deseret News is a very conservative newspaper, unfortunately with the exception of some gun issues. I don't recall the editorial they refer to though, I'll have to see if I can find it.
EDIT: A search on the Deseret News website does not bring up any editorials that much their quote. Anyone know where this editorial is? I'd like to read it.

Librarian
August 10, 2004, 08:00 PM
A typo seems to have snuck in - it's Desert Sun, Palm Springs, CA (http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2004/opinion/20040715235042.shtml)
The Desert Sun
July 16th, 2004
A tidal wave of assault weapons will soon legally flood the country unless Congress acts quickly to renew expiring federal legislation.

Just what we don’t need -- more opportunities for deadlier weapons to fall into the hands of criminals -- and more “play toys” to attract our children’s attention.

But that’s the harsh reality if Congress doesn’t stop playing chicken on this issue. Republican or Democrat -- someone needs to take the lead on this legislation for the good of the country -- and not worry about losing votes from the National Rifle Association and other interested parties.

... etc.

Sam Adams
August 11, 2004, 09:09 PM
He suspended his campaign back in March so he could go to Washington and cast one of the few Senate votes he found time to make in the past year. No one should read anything political into that.
Let all who read this note that he did this on SUPER-FREAKIN'-TUESDAY...and so did John (the Breck Girl) Edwards!!!

Bush said he'd sign the extension if it made it to his desk. He never promised to pressure lawmakers into getting it to that point.
A bit of strategery missed by almost everyone in the country who gives a damn about the gun issue, BOTH pro- and anti-.

"A tidal wave of assault weapons will soon legally flood the country unless Congress acts quickly to renew expiring federal legislation," screamed the editorial page of [fill in the name of ANY anti-gun rag in the country] "Just what we don't need -- more opportunities for deadlier weapons to fall into the hands of criminals -- and more 'play toys' to attract our children's attention."
Well, I'll be out there with a bucket, trying to get as much of that flood into my house as possible. :rolleyes: I'm glad that someone in the press/media finally called the rest of the morons on this issue.

Chickadees, let's take a breath and do some fact-checking on what the "assault weapons" ban did and did not do.
Fact-checking! In a newspaper?! I'm am very happy that I was sitting down when I read that.

These firearms were classified by how they looked and not by how they operate. Cosmetic and ergonomic features like telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs, pistol grips and flash suppressors that give the firearms a military-style appearance were banned even though they are mechanically indistinguishable from traditional sporting rifles....

The ban did not outlaw ownership of semi-automatic guns. Banned "assault weapons" have always been available on the secondary market, and owners of those guns don't break any law by reselling them.

Yep, anyone (excepting, of course, the unfortunate subjects of the various peoples republics on the coasts or in Daleyland) can buy any of the millions of pre-bans - not one was destroyed or turned-in because of the AWB. Add to that stock the tens of millions of functionally-identical firearms produced and imported in the last 9 years and 11 months, and any moron can see that there are FAR MORE GUNS FIRING MILITARY CARTRIDGES NOW THAN BEFORE THE AWB, YET THERE IS LESS CRIME COMMITTED WITH GUNS. Gee, that seems like a bit of a disconnect - maybe, just maybe, the gun-grabbing statists were F'ING WRONG!!!!!

The provision that banned "high-capacity" ammunition magazines is also scheduled to expire Sept. 13, although the House bill calling for the ban's extension does not mention high-capacity magazines.
Let's see, for the last 9 years and 11 months, and for 1 month longer, it has been and will be a federal crime to have a recently manufactured stamped-metal box containing a spring, which box is defined as being "too big" by a very arbitrary standard...but suddenly even those who propose the renewal of the AWB don't think that the continuatiion of this part of the ban is needed...Gee, that seems like a bit of a disconnect - maybe, just maybe, the gun-grabbing statists are F'ING HYPOCRITES!!!!! Oh, and let's not forget that there are literally tens or even hundreds of millions of these stamped-metal boxes out there, ownership of which would otherwise land you in the federal pen, but they are somehow "too old" to be dangerous (even if they are unused and functionally superior to a similar one produced during the AWB's reign of terror)? ***??? Yep, yet another of those logical disconnects.

The fact that you don't have to wear body armor and take your kids to school behind a bulletproof shield proves that the preponderance of America's gun owners are responsible, law-abiding people with no interest in committing crime.

There you go, the most closely guarded secret of the statist gun grabbers is out: American gun owners aren't violent. Nope, not when there are 85 million of us possessing some 250 million guns and there are about 12,000 murders per year. Even if every murder were committed by a different gun owner, we're looking at 0.01411% of gun owners being murderers (i.e. 99.98589% of us manage to suppress our inner Neanderthal and not go postal). That's not something that you'll hear at a DiFi press conference or see in a Brady Bunch commercial.

Shooting enthusiasts use military-style firearms to "kill" nothing more than pieces of paper or metal targets. Easy to operate, reliable and accurate, they make sport and competitive shooting fun.

Yet another fact that you'll never hear at a DiFi press conference or see in a Brady Bunch commercial.

This was a great article, a real breath of fresh air in the putrid swamp that is our press and media.

halvey
August 12, 2004, 11:23 AM
When we talk to hunters who don't care about the AWB, refer to their deer rifles as sniper weapons.

Isn't deer hunthing just like being a sniper? Sitting quietly unnoticed while taking long shots at an unspecting target?

Maybe that could change a mind or two.

Dead
August 12, 2004, 01:55 PM
Obiwan,

That is the key getting people to see that a AR-15, or Ak-47 in their hands does NOT turn them into a blood thirsty crazied killer.

Whenever I take someone to the range, I always pack up an AR & SAR for them to shoot.

Sam Adams
August 13, 2004, 06:01 PM
Whenever I take someone to the range, I always pack up an AR & SAR for them to shoot.

I'm probably going to bring a couple of folks to the range for their first shooting experience. I'm going to bring a boltie Chinese .22 and a S&W 10-shot .22 revolver to get them started, but (thanks to Dead) I'm also going to pack the Bushie. Let them see (without too much recoil) that shooting is fun and that even shooting an "evil" gun only results in :evil: :evil: :evil: Oh, and one of the folks that I'm taking is a 21 y.o. young lady who's going back to school in NYC in about a month - I hope that I can infect her with the gun bug and have her pass it on to the idjits in NYC.

If you enjoyed reading about "Excellent AWB editorial" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!