Illinois Prof with "the big lie" & AWB


PDA






Sungun09
August 16, 2004, 09:53 AM
Fellow citizens - The article, copied from concealcarry.org, details this idiots rant. It also has contact info should you wish to offer corrections to his article..


Bush is letting assault weapons ban expire
August 14, 2004

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref14a.html

BY STEPHEN YOUNG




Four years ago, gun violence was a key issue. After a series of mass shootings across the country and the failure of Congress to pass one piece of legislation addressing them, voters wanted answers. On Mother's Day 2000, 750,000 people gathered in Washington at the Million Mom March to demand action.


On Mother's Day 2004, the Million Mom March put out the call for another gathering, and 2,500 showed up. What happened to the gun control movement?


War, terrorism and jobs have pushed the gun issue off the political radar screen, which is where the Bush administration would like it to stay. But they're not going to get their wish.

Assault rifles are about to become legal in September when the law banning assault weapons expires. These are the same weapons our troops are trying to take off the streets of Baghdad. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush said he supported the ban. Early in 2004, he said he'd sign an extension of the ban if it reached his desk. That's turned out to be a big if.

In election year politics, saying he'll sign it doesn't mean he supports it. Recently, an Illinois congressman confided to gun control activists that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has received no White House directive to bring the ban extension bill on the floor.

This past March, the White House was caught unprepared when an extension of the ban was heading to Bush's desk as an amendment to the ''Lawful Protection of Commerce Act.'' The bill, which sought to give the gun industry almost 100 percent legal immunity from lawsuits, so enraged the gun-control movement that in a rare display of teamwork, it unified to defeat it. The victory prevented the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits pending against gun manufacturers and retailers, including a suit I've filed in Illinois arising from the death of my son with an illegally trafficked handgun.

Over the past 20 years, the gun industry's products have taken the lives of more than 30,000 Americans annually. The industry's critics accuse it of refusing to police itself and allowing junk gun manufacturers and unethical retailers to pour guns into illegal markets.

The Lawful Protection of Commerce Act was a product of the National Rifle Association in reaction to the slew of lawsuits brought by victims and governmental entities. It argued the suits have financially stressed an industry selling a ''legal'' product, and that more suits could close firearms companies, throwing thousands of employees out of work. No mention was made of the hundreds of thousands who have lost the ability to work because they were shot dead.

Bush said he'd sign the bill, claiming that tort reform is needed to protect defendants from unreasonable lawsuits. Bush also specified he wanted the bill to reach his desk with no amendments. The bill's opponents used that strategy to bring it down. Three amendments attached in the Senate survived by narrow margins. The first required that trigger locks be sold with all handguns. The second stipulated closing the gun show loophole that allows felons and the mentally unstable to buy weapons without a background check. The third extended the assault weapons ban.

To moderate voters, the three amendments seem reasonable. But the extremists won: The NRA refused to accept the three amendments, and the White House ordered the bill defeated.

On Sept. 13, the assault weapons ban will expire, and Bush will tell the electorate he would have signed the bill had it reached his desk. Police officers support the ban almost unanimously, as does about 75 percent of the American public. Still, Bush has decided to stick with his base in the NRA.

As we approach the election, Bush will claim he's the stronger candidate in dealing with terrorism, but if the gun control movement is smart, they'll ask him: How is it we're safer if assault weapons are now legal, and felons and terrorists can waltz into weekend gun shows to buy a military combat rifle with no questions asked?

Stephen Young is an adjunct lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Northwestern University.

And Mr. Young would like you to email him at: s-young2@northwestern.edu and tell him how much you enjoyed his article. You can also email the Sun Times Letters section at letters@suntimes.com


Posted By John Birch, President, Concealed Carry, Inc. Comments welcome: john@concealcarry.org

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois Prof with "the big lie" & AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Edmond
August 16, 2004, 10:11 AM
including a suit I've filed in Illinois arising from the death of my son with an illegally trafficked handgun.

So he is going to blame the gun manufacturers for the death of his son? As tragic as something like that is; you can't blame the makers of the guns. They are selling a legal product. If someone crashes their Corvette and kills themself, do you go sue Chevy?

Why are people constantly trying to hold the wrong people responsible? I would say that this guy has a personal grudge; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. But when you write false information for the masses to read, that is wrong.

They make it sound like Iraq with the These are the same weapons our troops are trying to take off the streets of Baghdad. Doesn't anyone notice that full auto weapons would still be illegal? I've never seen an RPG in real life and I've never seen any video's of criminals on the streets in America using RPG's. I think those people are just trying to make a false connection between something as horrific as war and tie it in to gun control.

Vitamin G
August 16, 2004, 12:56 PM
Professor Young,
I had the opportunity to read your article, titled "Bush is letting assault weapons ban expire". First, I would like to send my condolences on the loss of your son. However, I feel as though your lawsuit would be better aimed at those who were directly responsible for his loss. After all, it is hardly Pontiac's fault when an individual chooses to drink and drive.
I feel your article is misinformed, and at points, intellectually dishonest. The so called "Assault Weapons" that you refer to have little to no difference to any readily available rifle of handgun that is legally able to be purchased by anyone who undergoes the required background check. My own rifle, a Romanian SAR-1, lacks being an "assault rifle" because it is missing a bayonet screw. This is quite often, all that differentiates a defined "assault weapon" from a "normal" rifle. In addition, the "Assault Weapon" Ban did not remove any rifles or handguns from the ownership of any private citizens. It simply restricted the new purchase thereof. Any handgun that holds 10 rounds in its magazine is acceptable under the terms of the ban, however, any handgun that holds 11 rounds in its magazine, is an "assault weapon".
The Clinton Assault Weapons ban has been ineffective.
I agree with you wholeheartedly if your intention is to reduce gun violence and gun-related accidents, though it would seem that we disagree on the means to reach this end.
The majority of people, anywhere, will want that which is forbidden. The more the government engineers laws to prevent law abiding citizens their rights to own firearms, the more citizens will want firearms(and as well they should, for everytime the government begins to restrict ANY right, its citizens come one step closer to NEEDING firearms. Recall Hitler and his gun-control policy on the Jews)
For my part in reducing gun violence, I contribute to the NRA, who in turn sponsors a multitude of gun safety and gun education programs. A one year membership is $35, if your overall goal is indeed the reduction of gun-related violence in America.


Feedback appreciated....

Beren
August 16, 2004, 01:47 PM
My e-mail:

Mr. Young,

When addressing any issue, let alone one as controversial as gun control, it is essential to maintain a high level of credibility. Unfortunately, you shot your credibility full of holes with this bit of ballyhoo:

"Assault rifles are about to become legal in September when the law banning assault weapons expires. These are the same weapons our troops are trying to take off the streets of Baghdad."

Surely someone with your educational background knows the difference between a machinegun and a semi-automatic rifle. If you don't, I forgive you - I've found that many gun control proponents actually know very little about firearms.

The weapons our troops are trying to take off the streets of Baghdad are not "assault rifles" as defined by Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban. The weapons our troops face are fully automatic rifles, also known as machineguns. Machineguns - firearms capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger - are already controlled and regulated by the National
Firearms Act of 1934. Furthermore, an amendment attached to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 banned the registration of new machineguns for civilians.

Clinton's 1994 Assault Weapons Ban has no impact on machineguns, period, and it is extremely disingenuous of you to imply that it does. Automatic firearms will not flood our streets in September - they will remain tightly controlled, just as they have since 1934.

Clinton's ban limited semiautomatic rifles to a fixed number of "evil" features, and limited newly produced civilian magazines to ten rounds. Again, the "Assault Weapons Ban" has nothing to do with automatic
firearms.

Let's move on to your second bit of misinformation:

"The second stipulated closing the gun show loophole that allows felons and the mentally unstable to buy weapons without a background check."

In most states, citizens are allowed to sell their privately-owned semi-automatic rifles to other citizens without any government oversight. (This does not apply, obviously, to those who are in the business of selling firearms.) Why should it be less legal to do so at a gun show than in the parking lot, or in my home? After you "close the gun show loophole", will you march onward to "close the living room loophole?"

And your third, last but not least:

"felons and terrorists can waltz into weekend gun shows to buy a military combat rifle with no questions asked?"

Sigh. No-one can purchase a "military combat rifle" at a gun show with no questions asked. They can't do so today, and they won't be able to do so in
September. "Military combat rifles" are fully automatic. They are machineguns. They were never regulated by the Assault Weapons Ban, and the controls currently in place will remain in place in September. What, you may wonder, does a felon have to do to purchase a "military combat rifle?"

1. Find one that was registered prior to the 1986 ban.

2. Come up with the $16,000 or so that a registered M-16 currently commands, plus a $200 transfer tax.

3. Submit an application to the ATF, which includes fingerprints, photographs, and the signature of the chief law enforcement officer for their area. (Usually, this is a sheriff, district attorney, or police chief.)

4. Wait 3-6 months for the ATF to process the application. This includes an FBI background check.

5. Assuming the FBI background check comes back clean (highly unlikely in the case of a previously convicted felon!) and other criteria is satisfied, the ATF issues a tax stamp.

6. The buyer may then pick up their machinegun, at which time another instant background check is performed.

Such hardly constitutes "no questions asked", now does it?

Any purchase from a firearms dealer requires a background check - gun show or no gun show. Any purchase of a machinegun requires an /extensive/ check, gun show or no gun show. Private parties may sell semi-automatic rifles in most states, gun show or no gun show.

================

If a felon or terrorist wants to go on a "sniper rampage", all they need to find is someone's deer rifle. By design, deer rifles are highly accurate and fire a cartridge that is much more powerful than the intermediate round fired by "assault rifles." In the D.C. shootings, a deer rifle would have been more effective than the /stolen/ Bushmaster rifle that was employed.

Sincerely,

EchoSixMike
August 16, 2004, 03:17 PM
This is from Northwestern University's faculty page....

Stephen Young is a gun control activist who helped found the Million Mom March and organized the Midwest's largest ever gun control event. Following the 1996 murder of his oldest son Andrew with an illegally trafficked handgun Mr. Young has been an active participant in the public debate over gun control, has written many op-eds for Chicago newspapers and debated gun rights advocates on network television. His family's experience was documented by Chicago Public Television WTTW, in "A Justice That Heals." Mr. Young is currently writing a book about his experiences.

Just to give credence to the "intellectual honesty" debate raging at our college campuses.

halvey
August 16, 2004, 03:42 PM
Over the past 20 years, the gun industry's products have taken the lives of more than 30,000 Americans annually. The products have taken the lives?

Bush has decided to stick with his base in the NRA. And if he would have signed it you would have given W your support?

alan
August 16, 2004, 05:46 PM
My e-mail to the professor.

Sir:

I noticed in the above mentioned, that you made reference to "assault rifles". Re that, you might perhaps be interested in the technically correct definition of the genre, which while it differs from the definitions in the soon to be gone I hope legislation, is the CORRECT DEFINITION.

Assault Weapon: Selective Fire Weapon, Usually of Rifle Configuration, Chambered For An Intermediate Power Cartridge. You will find this definition in standard reference texts that deal with small arms. You can also find this definition at www.britanica.com, which used to be a free service. Don't think it is anymore. You might also check with The Dept. of the Army and or Dept. of Defense, if you like.

The point is that while the so-called assault weapons mentioned in the legislation bear a cosmetic resemblance to real assault rifles, that is to say military issue types, which are selective fire, the allegedly 19 specific imports mentioned in the law, actually a lot more than 19 were involved, lacked selective fire capability, as imported. In the event that they had retained selective fire capability, which once again, they did not, they would have fallen under the purview of The National Firearms Act of 1934. You might take a look at that.

In the event that it turns out that you are simply "against guns", that is, of course, your privilege. As the old saying goes, "It's a free country". When I was growing up, I was told that the knowing and deliberate making of false statements, said false statements being made with the intent to deceive others, could be characterized as lying, something that gentlemen did not indulge in.

So sir, with respect to your piece, which is it. Are you a liar, or do you simply not know what you are talking about?

Partisan Ranger
August 16, 2004, 07:09 PM
Some criminal shot his loved one, so his response is to work to disarm the rest of us so we can't defend ourselves. :rolleyes:

alan
August 16, 2004, 08:11 PM
I believe that the following would serve as an entirely reasonable characterization of the professor's line of thinking. Note, I refer to it that way, for want of more suitable terminology.

I have been greviously injured by criminal action, that much is certainly true, and my intent is to "show those criminals". In order to do this, I will of course, act against the rights of the law abiding.

I know that it doesn't make sense, but then I didn't claim that it did, did I?

Standing Wolf
August 16, 2004, 09:19 PM
On Mother's Day 2004, the Million Mom March put out the call for another gathering, and 2,500 showed up. What happened to the gun control movement?

America started to do some long overdue growing up on September 11, 2001.

DesertEagle613
August 16, 2004, 10:15 PM
Just about the only benefit I can see to the decades of low-level (I hope) war ahead of us is that we as a nation will have a chance to remember the things that are truly important. Conversely, to bury all of these bad ideas running around; we can no longer afford to waste our time and resources with them.

If one out of every ten citizens were armed, we would be infinitely safer.

Henry Bowman
August 17, 2004, 12:00 PM
Why are people constantly trying to hold the wrong people responsible?
Two words: Deep Pockets.

Gameface
August 17, 2004, 01:49 PM
Mr. Young,
In no way do I believe that you are ignorant of the inaccuracies and misleading terms used in your article. You certainly do not see people who are knowledgeable about firearms and related laws as your audience. I find it somewhat despicable that you rely on uninformed and mislead citizens to move your political interests forward. I can help to clue you in to why your movement is dwindling…It is not based on truth and reason, rather it is based on fear and helplessness. When you put forth an argument that is void of specific facts and false in its premise then you build a movement with a very week foundation. People who initially react positively to your movement will eventually learn of their own foolishness and resent you for deceiving them.

The AWB was useless. It seems to lack any semblance of reason. I would like you to tell me how the AWB helps to make us safe? I would like to know what bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and pistol grips have to do with crime? I would like to know why law-abiding armed citizens should be feared? I want reasons why we should disregard the Bill of Rights? You are fighting to take away my rights and make me less free so that you can increase your false sense of security. You better have better answers than the ones I’ve seen so far.

alan
August 17, 2004, 03:48 PM
Gameface:

Well said sir. Should you get a reply, unlikely in my opinion, be so kind as to share it with other interested parties.

GEM
August 17, 2004, 03:51 PM
Adjunct lecturers are not high on the academic totem pole. Not really ranked as a professor.

iamkris
August 17, 2004, 03:56 PM
My letter to the paper. I sent a similar but personalized letter to Mr Young himself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Letters Editor

I read Stephen Young's editorial regarding the sunset of the "Assault Weapons Ban" on August 14. First, my sincerest condolences on the loss of his son. As a father of three, I can't imagine anything more awful than the loss of a child.

I certainly see Mr. Young's passion for the gun control and "assault weapons" topic, however, at best he is either ignorant of facts or at worst being disingenuous about the topic. Frankly, in either case, voters deserve more to make rational, rather than emotional, decisions. Surely Mr. Young as a professor, someone ordained in society to teach truths rather than distortions, would agree.

He says "These [assault rifles] are the same weapons our troops are trying to take off the streets of Baghdad". That is not true and never has been. Our troops carry fully automatic machine guns (pull the trigger once, multiple shots are fired). These type of weapons have been severely regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The guns affected by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 bear no relationship to the weapons of our troops...except cosmetically only. They function like millions of other hunting and recreational guns...pull the trigger once, fire once.

Mr. Young says that the NRA blocked legislation to "close the gun show loophole that allows felons and the mentally unstable to buy weapons without a background check" to prevent "felons and terrorists waltzing into weekend gun shows to buy a military combat rifle with no questions asked". Sir, please. Gunshows are under the same guidelines as any other gun transaction at a gun shop or between two individuals. Licensed dealers are under stringent regulations for background checks through the Federal government and documentation of the buyer. In states where private transactions between citizens are permitted, a gun show acts no differently. There is no "gun show loophole". One cannot go to a gun show and buy a "military combat rifle" without following all the strict guidelines that govern the sale of automatic weapons.

Finally, Mr. Young blames the gun industry for trying to block frivolous liability law suits. Again, I can only imagine the pain he experienced at the loss of a child, however, suing the gun manufacturer is a symptom of this society's misguided direction to shift blame to those with deep pockets from the people responsible. A criminal pulled the trigger that killed his son...the gun didn't do it by itself nor did a faceless "gun industry".

I hope Mr. Young teaches his students with more objectivity and to think more objectively than the editorial demonstrates.

Sincerely,

xxx

Bruce H
August 17, 2004, 04:10 PM
Of all the things in the Harry Potter movies the screaming letter would be perfect for this person. He has no logic or anything else. Totally ruled by emotions. Incapable of coherent thought because he is blind to facts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois Prof with "the big lie" & AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!