Unisaw
Member
The following letters appeared in today's (8/27/04) Seattle Times:
Unassailable right
Support for ban on assault weapons issues from left
Editor, The Times:
Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske's "Renew assault-weapons ban" (Times guest commentary, Aug. 25), concerning the assault-weapons ban, deserves a skeptical response. By technical (military) definition, an assault rifle is a gun of moderate power with full automatic capability. These guns have been restricted and strongly controlled since the mid-1930s.
Many of the banned rifles were given a cosmetic makeover and were then legal under the ban and continued to be sold and used.
On top of that, the Centers for Disease Control, a governmental agency, released a report of a recently completed study of all gun-control measures of the past couple of decades, which found no measurable benefit of any of them, including the Brady bill and the assault-weapon ban. I'm sure the chief is aware of this report!
Most of the local support seems to be emotional politics in support of the left lean of Seattle and King County.
— Tendon Wakeley, Bellevue
This round to the people
Chief of Police Gil Kerlikowske could not be more wrong about renewing the "assault weapons" ban. Rank-and-file law enforcement does not support the ban. In particular, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (L.E.A.A.) supports the sunset of the 1994 Crime Bill's disarmament provisions.
Limiting a class of firearms that is used in fewer than 1 percent of violent crimes is ridiculous. Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds is equally absurd. Is there some magic lethality coefficient in 10 rounds as opposed to 11 or 9? Why should police officers have access to 15-round magazines until retirement and then be limited to 10? Do they somehow become less trustworthy once they begin drawing a pension?
Policy arguments aside, the Second Amendment of the Constitution isn't about what the government thinks the citizens should own or not own. The Second Amendment was enacted to protect us from government.
Moreover, if the chief will study Article II of the Constitution, he might learn that all of the rights not delegated to the federal government or granted to the states are reserved to the people, (including) an absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own defense and the defense of the state. The translation of this right is, what is good for the police for protection is good for the people for the same application.
— Craig Andersen, Vancouver, Wash.
Loaded forbearance
I find it morbidly ironic that Chief Gil Kerlikowske is advocating for renewal of the so-called "assault weapons ban."
This is the man who ordered the Seattle police to stand down (while) racist sociopaths brutally assaulted people during Mardi Gras (in 2001).
Since the police cannot be depended upon to protect us, what is so hard about understanding our need to protect ourselves?
— Bob Blakely, Tacoma
False senses of security
I wonder if Gil Kerlikowske, as chief of police, has been to a gun store lately? What the ban has accomplished is stupid, at best. You can still buy a semiautomatic rifle with a 30-round clip. The only difference is that the lug where a bayonet is attached has been ground down. While the larger clips have been banned, millions were imported before the ban, in anticipation of the ban.
The effect of the ban is entirely meaningless. As with most things done in Congress, it is so watered down it does nothing. The ban just makes silly liberals feel they have gotten away with something.
By the way, an assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon that fires bullets continually as long as the trigger is held. They were banned in the 1930s. Semiautomatic weapons shoot once for each time the trigger is pulled. You can see one on the belt of every police officer.
The term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, as is the ban.
— Pierre Stephenson, Ocean Park
No silver bullet
"The devil is in the details" was never truer than with the convoluted 1994 "assault weapon" legislation. Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske appears to badly misunderstand this law.
The law could not possible have "kept military-style assault weapons out of the hands of criminals." Assume that criminals observe gun laws. The 1994 law still doesn't keep these guns from any hands. AR-15 and AK-47 rifles, for example, remain widely available. Guns made before 1994 were grandfathered. Post-1994 guns require only minor, functionally insignificant alterations in order to comply.
It's mad superstition to think this facade of a law could have had the impact Kerlikowske describes.
— Russell Garrard, Bellevue
Aside from stating that automatic weapons were banneed in the 1930's (as opposed to heavily regulated), these are some pretty good letters.
Unassailable right
Support for ban on assault weapons issues from left
Editor, The Times:
Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske's "Renew assault-weapons ban" (Times guest commentary, Aug. 25), concerning the assault-weapons ban, deserves a skeptical response. By technical (military) definition, an assault rifle is a gun of moderate power with full automatic capability. These guns have been restricted and strongly controlled since the mid-1930s.
Many of the banned rifles were given a cosmetic makeover and were then legal under the ban and continued to be sold and used.
On top of that, the Centers for Disease Control, a governmental agency, released a report of a recently completed study of all gun-control measures of the past couple of decades, which found no measurable benefit of any of them, including the Brady bill and the assault-weapon ban. I'm sure the chief is aware of this report!
Most of the local support seems to be emotional politics in support of the left lean of Seattle and King County.
— Tendon Wakeley, Bellevue
This round to the people
Chief of Police Gil Kerlikowske could not be more wrong about renewing the "assault weapons" ban. Rank-and-file law enforcement does not support the ban. In particular, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (L.E.A.A.) supports the sunset of the 1994 Crime Bill's disarmament provisions.
Limiting a class of firearms that is used in fewer than 1 percent of violent crimes is ridiculous. Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds is equally absurd. Is there some magic lethality coefficient in 10 rounds as opposed to 11 or 9? Why should police officers have access to 15-round magazines until retirement and then be limited to 10? Do they somehow become less trustworthy once they begin drawing a pension?
Policy arguments aside, the Second Amendment of the Constitution isn't about what the government thinks the citizens should own or not own. The Second Amendment was enacted to protect us from government.
Moreover, if the chief will study Article II of the Constitution, he might learn that all of the rights not delegated to the federal government or granted to the states are reserved to the people, (including) an absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own defense and the defense of the state. The translation of this right is, what is good for the police for protection is good for the people for the same application.
— Craig Andersen, Vancouver, Wash.
Loaded forbearance
I find it morbidly ironic that Chief Gil Kerlikowske is advocating for renewal of the so-called "assault weapons ban."
This is the man who ordered the Seattle police to stand down (while) racist sociopaths brutally assaulted people during Mardi Gras (in 2001).
Since the police cannot be depended upon to protect us, what is so hard about understanding our need to protect ourselves?
— Bob Blakely, Tacoma
False senses of security
I wonder if Gil Kerlikowske, as chief of police, has been to a gun store lately? What the ban has accomplished is stupid, at best. You can still buy a semiautomatic rifle with a 30-round clip. The only difference is that the lug where a bayonet is attached has been ground down. While the larger clips have been banned, millions were imported before the ban, in anticipation of the ban.
The effect of the ban is entirely meaningless. As with most things done in Congress, it is so watered down it does nothing. The ban just makes silly liberals feel they have gotten away with something.
By the way, an assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon that fires bullets continually as long as the trigger is held. They were banned in the 1930s. Semiautomatic weapons shoot once for each time the trigger is pulled. You can see one on the belt of every police officer.
The term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, as is the ban.
— Pierre Stephenson, Ocean Park
No silver bullet
"The devil is in the details" was never truer than with the convoluted 1994 "assault weapon" legislation. Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske appears to badly misunderstand this law.
The law could not possible have "kept military-style assault weapons out of the hands of criminals." Assume that criminals observe gun laws. The 1994 law still doesn't keep these guns from any hands. AR-15 and AK-47 rifles, for example, remain widely available. Guns made before 1994 were grandfathered. Post-1994 guns require only minor, functionally insignificant alterations in order to comply.
It's mad superstition to think this facade of a law could have had the impact Kerlikowske describes.
— Russell Garrard, Bellevue
Aside from stating that automatic weapons were banneed in the 1930's (as opposed to heavily regulated), these are some pretty good letters.
