We must push Congress to reauthorize weapons ban.

[spin180]

We must push Congress to reauthorize weapons ban

By SPECIAL TO CITIZEN-TIMES
Aug. 31, 2004 6:47 p.m.

Only five working days remain after the August recess for Congress to reauthorize the assault weapons ban (AWB).

Looking over the list of 136 supporters of HB3831, Rep. Charles Taylor is missing. His disappearance is surprising considering Republican Rep. Michael Castle (Del.) is a co- sponsor and President Ronald Reagan was an enthusiastic supporter of the current AWB. In a handwritten note to Rep. Scott Klug (R-Wis.)

President Reagan said, "I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed."

Can Taylor ignore the pressure from the National Rifle Association that has given him more than $42,150 in campaign cash since 1989?

If not, expect the following, "...one assault weapon manufacturer's sales and marketing director told us, `When the AWB sunsets, which I fully expect it to do, we will be manufacturing pre-ban-style weapons and shipping them to the general public through distribution systems and dealers the very next day without doubt. We look forward to Sept. 14 with great enthusiasm.'"

Do you?

Eva L. Ritchey,

Hendersonville

**************


I think I'll fire off a rebuttal to this one. Anyone care to offer some ideas or suggestions for a response?

 

[SoCalGeek]

My suggestions would be-

1.) Don't get into the "technical" aspects, like what features are banned or the difference between semi-auto and full-auto. Most non-gun people will find this boring or confusing and aren't likely to read it.

2.) Explain that "The 1994 legislation has had little to no effect on crime, according to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice." source Try and use that wording or something close, as it's short,concise, and not political.

3.) Don't mention "the anti-gunners", "the gun-grabbers", "the liberal media", "leftist god-hating pinkos", or anything similar. I used to be one and trust me, it makes them think you're insane.

But then, this advice is worth exactly what you paid for it..

Best of luck,

Alex

 

[Jim K]

How about this for a letter to the paper (use it with my compliments):

I wonder why supporters of more gun control, and renewal of the ban on a few cosmetic features of some firearms (which is all the so-called "assault weapons ban" does) never seem to be in favor of punishing those who commit crimes, with or without weapons.

It is notable that some of the very same people who condemn guns of the type used by the "beltway snipers" are now lining up to request leniency for those same murderers. One apologist for the snipers even praised them, and said, "They showed us the way to defeat the NRA and ban guns, and that is a positive force for good." We can only hope that not many other supporters of gun bans are prepared are to "do good" in that way.

I cannot help but wonder about those who blame an inanimate object for crime, but cannot bring themselves to blame the human who commits the crime.

(Your name and address here.)

Jim

 

[krusty311]

Thank you jim keenan.Sent to my reps.


krusty

 

[WhoKnowsWho]

I'm sad to admit my wife thought the AWB also included Full Auto weapons... :banghead:

 

[molonlabe]

Jim
They showed us the way to defeat the NRA and ban guns, and that is a positive force for good." We can only hope that not many other supporters of gun bans are prepared are to "do good" in that way.
__________________________________________

Do you have any reference on that statement? That is about the most evil dribble I have ever heard coming from the anti gunners. That says a lot about the nature of the enemy and they are enemies of freedom. And now evil to boot.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I have NEVER found anyone who wanted to AWB extended that understood it:banghead:

Most think it's about machine guns, WMD, or something even more crazy

We are lead by ignorance.

Sad.

 

[buzz_knox]

I have NEVER found anyone who wanted to AWB extended that understood it

Respectfully, you're wrong. Those who drafted the law and the primary supporters (police chiefs, Brady, etc) and the media know exactly what it means: the camel's nose under the tent.

 

[Zach S]

Looking over the list of 136 supporters of HB3831, Rep. Charles Taylor is missing.

Well, he did vote against the ban in 94, and for the repeal in 96.

 

[benEzra]

spin180,

Point out that the law bans ALL FIREARMS HOLDING OVER 10 ROUNDS, with a couple of very minor exceptions (.22 rimfires using tubular magazines and reproductions of certain civil-war-era carbines that would otherwise be banned by the law). You'd be surprised how many people think it refers to "19 banned guns."

 

[para.2]

Ronald Reagan also said (when he was running for Governor of CA),

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all."

What guns do you think he was referring to? A CCW .38 snubby? Grampaw's 12 gauge side-by-side? Or arms in common use by the military at the time?

 

[moa]

I have no official source for this, but during the 10 year period of the Federal AWB, 5,000,000 similar firearms were legally sold. The only difference between the AWB firearms and the five million where simple cosmetic differences such as bayonet lug, or flash suppressor, or pistol grip, etc.

The AWB firearms and the 5 million firearms function exactly the same way depending which AWB firearm was altered, copied, derived or inspired invention.

So, if the AWB caused crime to go down, what was the impact of the five million being sold in our communities? Probably nothing negative of any great consequence.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Zach S: sure, Taylor voted against the ban. But he received more than $42,150 in NRA contributions since 1989!

That's a whopping $2810 per election cycle to a congressman who supports your views. I find it hard to believe that a congressman can be "bought" for less than $3000.

 

[Gunstar1]

Respectfully, you're wrong. Those who drafted the law and the primary supporters (police chiefs, Brady, etc) and the media know exactly what it means: the camel's nose under the tent.

I would have to dissagree with you.
I have heard police chiefs in several different states claim that the AWB stopped production of machine guns.
Brady has sued the ATF because they allowed bushmaster to exchange new receivers for cracked/defective ones as long as bushmaster submitted the change and kept a record of the number change.

Brady says that since the guns were sold with the attachments that made it an Assault Weapon that the receiver swap would constitute a new assault weapon being made.

The only problem is that the same guns were also sold without the attachments making them still legal. Most of the time only the bare receiver was sent in for repair/swap so even though the receiver part of the gun is still technically a gun, the bare receiver without the attachments is technically not an Assault Weapon.

Brady does not seem to know what is in the law, nor do many police cheifs, and don't get me started on how little the media knows about it.

If however you are saying that it was intended as a stepping stone to ban more firearms I would have to agree, but it has been about as successful as prohibition.

 

[buzz_knox]

Brady does not seem to know what is in the law, nor do many police cheifs, and don't get me started on how little the media knows about it.

You really want to bet on that? They have analysts just as capable as the NRA, or thehighroad.org, who can tell them precisely what the law is about. That's why Brady has admitted nothing will change when the AWB expires (i.e. no machineguns). But perception is reality nowadays. If cops and Brady are telling people that its all about machineguns, and the media buys the line, then that becomes the reality. As for Brady's suit against ATF, that's merely to get ATF to go to more extreme levels. You think that people who know precisely what the law says don't go to agencies to get regulations which tighten it even further and make it say what they want? Look at the environmental and employment laws and see how the law says one thing, but agencies make it say another just be regulations. That's what Brady was doing: using the courts to further their cause, regardless of the validity of the claim.

And if you think the media doesn't know what's it is all about, remember the NBC exercise where they shot a hunting rifle and an AK together to prove the AK was more powerful. Thing is, they shot the AK at the target and the rifle at the ground. Why would they lie to the public unless they knew what the truth was.

 

[Sam Adams]

MOA

So, if the AWB caused crime to go down, what was the impact of the five million being sold in our communities? Probably nothing negative of any great consequence.

The biggest joke is that nothing was outlawed except future production of certain named rifles and unnamed rifles with a few totally cosmetic (i.e. non-functional) features. Thus, the entire stock of ACTUAL "Assault Weapons" can be added to the 5 million guns that you've addressed. What's that, maybe an additional 5-10 million? My questions/comments for the moronic @ssholes in favor of the law have been and are:

1. If the weapons were so bad and so evil, why did the law only ban future production and leave millions of rifles grandfathered? (and if they said, "well, you have to start somewhere" my response has been "Moron, guns can last for over 100 years. What kind of a start is that?"). [As an aside, I can't wait to get a pre-1899 Finnish M-39. It'll be real fun to have this debate with some idiot, and to show them a 1.5 MOA group from a 100-year old rifle with no rust on it. Money permitting, I'll get one in the next 2-3 months].

2. If it is certain performance characteristics that caused crime or made it worse (a dubious proposition, if ever there was one), why did the future ban only deal with purely cosmetic features, like flash suppressors, folding stocks and bayonet lugs? When is the last time you heard of a drive-by bayonetting, or a rash of assaults with flash suppressors, putz?

3. So, where's the bloodbath? You've got 10-15 million functionally identical weapons out there in public hands, and future production has really NOT been banned - not for functionally identical weapons - so many millions more will be added to the stock, and yet there have only been maybe 1/2 dozen well-publicized incidents. What is the purpose of the law, when only 1 in 2-3 million people owning such weapons over a 10-year period go nuts and commit a crime, other than making it more difficult for innocent and law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and live in freedom?

4. What's with the magazine ban? You have literally hundreds of millions of mags that can fit not only the (not really) banned weapons, but also the functionally identical new ones that have been produced. Anyone can get them via mail order, at a gun show or shop, or from a friend, all perfectly legally, and use them in any functionally identical gun no matter when it was produced. So, WHAT'S THE POINT? Don't tell me the "its a start" crap again because, as with guns, mags can also last for a hundred years or more (esp. since it isn't illegal to replace the spring and follower). All this did was to enrich those who had the mags on 9/13/94, at the expense of everyone else - it did NOTHING to control crime.

5. Where in the Constitution does the government get the authority to pass and enforce legislation like this? If you say "its for the public's benefit" or some other such moronic pablum, then I'll make a good case to ban nearly everything we use. You'll lose your SUV because it is too large, making it dangerous, too polluting and forcing up gas prices that the poor can't afford to pay. You'll lose your 3,000 square foot house, as it is very wasteful of resources. Electric razors, alarm clocks knives, can openers, and dishwashers - what, are you kidding, look at all of the polluting coal or dangerous nuclear power plants that we need to run all of those things - BANNED, by edict of King Sam Adams, protector of those who don't know better!! Are you so stupid and such a sheep that you believe the government should have such practically unlimited power? If so, move to Cuba or Red China, you'll be happier there and you won't phuck up this country for people like me that DO care about freedom and liberty.

 

[Gunstar1]

Brady's suit comes only months before the law they are talking about will no longer exist. If the Judge says the ATF must enforce the law, by that time the law will be gone. Nothing to enforce.

I find it funny that no one uses these guns for target shooting or hunting yet so many manufacturers are expecting high sales. These are background checked so no fair claiming terrorists.

I like to think there are only a few that knowingly lie and emotionalize guns and the rest are just ingorant or willfully ignorant of the truth who are made to think what they feel about guns outways the truth about guns.

 

[frenchwrench]

One of the biggest points is the lack of full capacity mags for our own troops.The purchase of non OEM mags is the biggest gripe our troops have.Because they cause the gun to fail to feed.....

 

[jefnvk]

How much do anti gun groups donate to their canidates? One would logically guess that these politicians are just in it for the money too (to use as an argument, not that I believe that most are out just for the money)

 

[telewinz]

Not to be insensitive but Ronald Reagan was in the early stages of mental illness at the time he recommended that the AWB be passed.

 

[Gameface]

I have to agree with buzz_knox that many people do know exactly what the AWB means. If legislation limiting firearms because they are too dangerous is legitimate in any case then it’s legitimate in all cases. It creates precedence for gun control in regard to safety. It doesn’t matter that the AWB didn’t actually have anything to do with firearms that were more dangerous than others, the intent; therefore the precedent to do so is legitimized. Of course many ignorant people have to be encouraged to support the legislation otherwise it doesn’t pass. The easy way to stir up lots of uniformed, unintelligent, uneducated folks is to present a purely emotional argument, that (refer to the folks I mentioned) doesn’t need to be based even remotely in fact or on logic. They aren’t going to investigate, they’re mad and they already know that guns are bad because, after all, they’re only made to kill.

Maybe I’m a little too much of an Ayn Rand fan, but I believe that there are folks on the left who are very smart and know exactly what all the foolishness they promote is really about. These social programs create a greater dependence on the government; therefore weaken individual freedom and liberty. Those who are strong are evil because they greedily use their strength for their own benefit without regard for the greater good. If you own a firearm and can protect your own family then you are evil because there is a pacifist family next door that must rely on 911 for protection. Why should you be safer than your neighbor? You must not care about your neighbor. You’re obviously a heartless conservative. Those who make this destructive legislation benefit from public fear and weakness. They gain power, control and money when the public turns to them to solve their problems.

It isn’t an accident and you’re hurting yourself if you think that every liberal is a moron. Don’t underestimate your enemy, know them more than they know you.

Gameface

 

[molonlabe]

________________________________________________
If cops and Brady are telling people that its all about machineguns, and the media buys the line, then that becomes the reality.
________________________________________________


Enemies of freedom are well aware of how to manipulate the masses. It’s not really that hard, just look at the mindless stuff on TV. All of us would benefit from a study on propaganda as people are bombarded with it every day. To sort the wheat from the chaff I always return to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I always told my kids TV would rot your mind.