1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Presidents for Gun Control

Discussion in 'Legal' started by FRIZ, Jul 17, 2004.

  1. FRIZ

    FRIZ New Member

    May 24, 2003
    Here is a sample of what is fed to the masses.

    The New York Times
    July 17, 2004

    Presidents for Gun Control


    Few Americans favor a return to the day when military-style assault weapons like AK-47's, Uzis and Tec-9 pistols could be manufactured and sold in this country, making them readily available for use by gangs and drug traffickers engaged in violent crime. Yet President Bush has still not made any effort to stop the 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons from expiring on Sept. 13.

    Seeking to prod the White House into action, two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York, released a letter this week that was signed by Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and urged Mr. Bush to take a forceful role in rallying Congress to save the law. At a time when terrorism is a serious threat, the former presidents wrote, it is even more imperative to renew the ban, the Assault Weapons Act, and limit access to military-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

    It seems doubtful that Mr. Bush will heed his predecessors' message. His zeal for fighting terrorism and crime appears not to extend to risking the wrath of pro-gun extremists who are vehemently opposed to the renewal of this proven public safety measure, even though it has led to a sharp drop in the use of assault weapons in crime. The weapons ban also has support from every major law enforcement group in the country.

    To fuzz up the issue and soften his political image, Mr. Bush continues to pay lip service to backing the reauthorization of the gun restrictions, which he endorsed as a presidential candidate in 2000. In reality, he knows that he is dooming the assault weapons ban by refusing to instruct the Republican Congressional leaders to get a renewal bill to his desk, pronto.
  2. mattf7184

    mattf7184 Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    South FL
    They can ban all the high capacity clips they want, just let us have our magazines LOL :cuss:
  3. Sylvilagus Aquaticus

    Sylvilagus Aquaticus Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Dallas, Texas
    If the Honorable Presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton wish to 'save the law' or otherwise attempt to restrict the legal and lawful ownership of firearms, perhaps they should seek a second term (again) as President, or, in the case of Mr. Clinton, repeal the 22nd Amendment and seek a third term and do it themselves.

  4. TarpleyG

    TarpleyG Senior Member

    Dec 28, 2002
    North Carolina
    Again, we see the lies spewing forth. PROVE THAT STATEMENT TO ME!!!! The AWB didn't stop two American muslim men from going on a month long shooting rampage in your beloved capitol, did it? No, it didn't. And, short of never having made guns ever in our history, you couldn't have stopped it. If they couldn't have used an AR-15, they would have used a bolt action.

    Stupid reporters. Get a life or start telling the truth.

  5. Roc_Kor

    Roc_Kor Member

    Apr 16, 2004
    Woodbridge, VA
    Hahahaha... no, wrong.

    Wow! A sharp drop from 1%!!! That must mean it's... stastically irrelevent.

    Get the facts people.:cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss: :cuss:

    Can't forget Mr. Firehead. :fire:
  6. Treylis

    Treylis Participating Member

    Dec 14, 2003
    Tempe, Arizona
    At least it's classed as an editorial and not snuck in as a real story.
  7. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Active Member

    Dec 28, 2002
    Capac, Michigan
    Something approaching a tautology; If you define "assault weapons" as the guns banned by the AWB, yes. If you use any kind of functional definition, no.

    Look, if you defined "get away cars" as candy apple red Chevy Caprices, and banned exactly that, after ten years you'd see a decline in the use of "get away cars", so defined. You just wouldn't see any decline in people driving away from crimes.

    I think some of the people in the press shilling for this ban don't understand that, because they reflexively assume that everything the gun control movement says is on the up and up. So they don't even think about doing any fact checking. But it's still worth beating them over the head with the facts, because eventually some of them might wise up.

    The New York Times doesn't fall into that redeemable catagory, though. They know they're spouting BS.

Share This Page