Anti assault weapons ban article by D Rep from TN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really it boils down to retaining or losing the power of majority...

Group A supports an issue like banning green apples, they are green, we hate them, they must be banned.

Group B supports the diversity of apples, green, red, yellow, they are all equal we will not ban them.

Well the voters like all apples, who supports all apples, group B does, lets vote in all group B members, since the group A members will not let us have green apples.

Years go by...

Well now it is time to elect the new groups, well Group A sees the error of its ways, "apples were a hot topic, but they "burned us" so we will stay away from that issue".

A new hot issue has come along, and the voters really agree the new hot issue is really bad and it's all group B's fault. So Group A supports the fact that the hot issue is bad too.

The voters see this and vote in a majority of Group A members because they all agree, it's bad, group B really screwed up, they have to go.

Next time around, group B will see the error of their ways and so forth...
 
What an amazing and simple definition of the issue. It was eloquent, and still was lacking verbose or high minded language. I am impressed!!!
 
CCARNEL, thanks for posting this. With several pro-gun bills being considered by the state legislature in TN. I like to find out who is on our side.
 
What an amazing and simple definition of the issue. It was eloquent, and still was lacking verbose or high minded language. I am impressed!!!
Click to expand...

You mean what I wrote or the article, or ar you pulling my leg?

I'm serious... I just tried to explain it as simple as possible...

:confused:
 
at least this politician took the time to explore the issue before jumping to conclusions based on fear or hyperbole
 
MD_Willington you made some interesting comments that got me thinking. I see it a little differently here in the US…what it really boils down to is …….Control.

Group A has a deeply entrenched Socialist agenda and the fundamental belief that Government should have control. Private ownership of the means to defend oneself from rogue governments is frightening to these “do-gooders.” They also know that this belief doesn’t work too well in elections, so this fact is carefully, but not very successfully, veiled during elections.

Group B has a Republican free market agenda and the fundamental belief that the People should have control. Well…at least this is true on paper. They also know that their belief works in elections and history has proven them correct, but they are still politicians at heart.

Group A takes up the gun ban issue and have to foment lies and dis-information to hide their real agenda – which is all about control. They repeatedly lose elections.

Group B campaigns on their platform and also debunk the gun ban myths with the truth and win elections. Then, once in power, they forget the core beliefs that got them elected and ultimately lose elections.

Group A realizes the error of their ways, and seeks to conceal their beliefs even further by becoming more like Group B while attacking their opponents without divulging the specifics of their own beliefs or agenda and win elections. Their agenda and core beliefs haven’t changed. Its still all about control.

Group C, the average apathetic American voter, who lacks the desire or ability to see past the nose on their face, actually falls for this ruse by Group A.

Group A once in power, gradually pass even more restrictive measures that serve to increasingly limit freedom.

Group D, the informed patriotic freedom loving American Citizen loses even more control to BIG GOVERNMENT.

Moral of the Story– Its all about control.
 
Guys seriously cut and paste the article below into a Word document, print it out and FAX it to your AWB loving congressmen. They may not listen to us but they may give more weight to something written by someone they consider a peer.



Issue is really about 'assault-style weapons'

By BEN WEST JR. (Democrat, a state representative for Tennessee's 60th Legislative District and a Nashville businessman.)


Recently, I was asked, "How do we get assault weapons off the street?"
As I considered that question, I decided that I should first determine what the problem is before I began to solve it.

Are "assault weapons" causing a problem on the street? No. Most experts define an assault weapon as a weapon capable of fully automatic firing. Assault weapons are machine guns and submachine guns. That type of weapon is not what I was being asked to address.

Another use of the term "assault weapons" appeared in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban where it was used to describe semi-automatic firearms that have mostly cosmetic features normally associated with military firearms. These semi-automatic weapons were called assault weapons because they "looked" bad, not because of what they could do. These semi-automatic firearms are really "assault-styled weapons" but they are not assault weapons. The term "assault-style weapons" is used by public officials, media and gun-control proponents to refer to firearms they consider inappropriate for civilian ownership.

Intended as a wedge issue
The characteristics of "assault-styled weapons" are largely irrelevant to a street crime problem. There is no epidemic of bayonetings or grenadings in Nashville. The pejorative term was likely created specifically to fit in the sentence, "Why would anybody need an assault weapon?" If so, it was intended as a wedge issue to push hunters away from the rest of the firearms community.

So, is the question really, "How do we get semi-automatic firearms that are cosmetically threatening off the streets?"

The first semi-automatic rifle was built in 1885. American gunsmith John Browning introduced semi-automatics to the civilian market as early 1906. The semi-automatic firearm has been in civilian hands in this country longer than the fuel-injected engine, the personal computer, the microwave oven, the credit card, the television and many other common items. Nobody complained until relatively recently.

The 1994 gun ban did not prohibit all semi-automatic firearms but just those that had a military look. But a semi-auto is a semi-auto no matter how mean or scary it may look. The technology is more than a 100 years old. If "assault-style weapons" have no place in society, then it follows that semi-automatics of any kind have no place in society. But our nation has persevered for close to 100 years with these guns in private hands, and there appears to be no sign of fundamental social breakdown as a result or 100-year crime trend because of their existence.

I am not persuaded that military-looking weapons are a problem. People misusing semi-automatic and other firearms are certainly a problem. I believe the solution is that we need to get and keep criminals off the street. Constitutionally, it is better to get the criminals off the streets than to classify a large group of responsible, law-abiding citizens as potential criminals just because of the look of the guns they may own.
 
Dems have two different pullings. One is to the Socialist elite in the upper East Coast who even then are only socialist in concept but are essentially corporatist in practice. The other is to their local constituents.

Republicans have two pullings. One is to the big money sources of the Democrats, (yes, they too are Corporatists), although they talk alot about smaller government and more responsibility, and freedom, they do whatever the Corporatists want as well (even if they means taxes and laws which distort the market in favour of those corporations). The other is their local constituents.

The local constituents of Southern Democrats hate gun control, so Dems in the South are pro-gun more often than not. They get national, and that goes away. Just look at Bill Clinton for evidence on that.
 
Ben West, Jr.

Ah Rep. Ben West, Jr. He has always been Pro RKBA. Imagine if he were House Speaker instead of that goon, Naifeh.
 
Silly politician. How does he expect to actually garner any kind of publicity with this informed, intellectual commentary. :neener:

Jokes aside good for him. I will have to drop him a line showing my support. Why does it seem so simple for some of us and so difficult for others. Violence for the sake of violence is wrong....the tools used don't make it any worse or any better.

Chris
 
Good grief, logical thought from a Democrat, who'd have thunk it. That piece was more logical than many answers I've gotten from Republicans on the same subject.

I did notice that he's on record with the NRA as supporting gun registration.

Maybe I'll write him a letter thanking him for his logical stand on the AWB and see if he can't be persuaded away from gun registration.
 
mordechaianiliewicz you are mistaken in your generalizations about the Upper East Coast.

Maine and New Hampshire are some of the best states in the US to be a gun owner in.

Take a gander at Vermont and you will find a mecca for 2A rights.

Mass is a nightmare so please specifically refer to is rather than lumping some of the best states on 2A Issues into the mix.

Tx
 
Moral of the Story– Its all about control.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!

They must take our weapons so we don't have the means of resisting their agenda. They know we won't accept it willingly so they must render us incapable of resistance to it.
 
I would really like to see an anti-assault weapon article give hard statistics as part of the argument against such bans. They make up 1-2% of all firearm-related crime and is a statistically insignifigant source.

However, at least a Democratic Representative did step up to the plate and provide a nice platter of common sense.
 
Whoa

Are there more like him anywhere?
I didn't know there were any dems who could use logic left anywhere in the country. Now if he can just get the rest of his party to see reason....
 
nice arcticle, just goes to show what happens when you compare a tennesee Democrat with a certain New York Republican :uhoh: Political prejudice against gun owners seems to be mostly regional, from the mid atlantic states, california, and chicago areas, but a democratic belief at the national level. Although neither party has gone out of their way to do great things for us anytime recently (letting an unconstitutional law expire isn't exactly fire and brimstone), the Democrats are walking on eggshells now, but not after 08.
 
"Ah Rep. Ben West, Jr. He has always been Pro RKBA. Imagine if he were House Speaker instead of that goon, Naifeh."

I sold a very nice LeFever Arms 20 ga. double to him way back in 1980. Nice guy and he really appreciates firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Fudds are dangerous to your rights
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
hso
hso
D
  • Locked
Connecticut Newspaper Claims Statewide Firearms Ban Possible
Replies
15
Views
1K
crunker
C
F
  • Locked
Pro "Assault Rifle" article by a Nashville Democrat
Replies
18
Views
1K
JackBurtonJr
JackBurtonJr
C
  • Locked
GOP Will Let Assault Weapon Ban Expire...(multiple threads)
2 3
Replies
54
Views
1K
LawDog
L
H
  • Locked
MD: Ehrlich, Miller at odds on assault weapons ban
Replies
10
Views
708
Norton
N
Back
Top