Apparently the editorial writers at the Post watched CSPAN2 last week along with the rest of us. They at least admit that the ban is cosmetic, but it should be extended because not to do so would be morally indefensible in a country still recovering from Columbine and the DC sniper attacks? So the people are supposed to give up their rights so that the blissniineys at the Post can feel like something has been done about violence? 
Jeff
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...361?OpenDocument&Headline=Ban+assault+weapons
Ban assault weapons
03/10/2004
THE SHOWDOWN WAS SURPRISINGLY LOPSIDED, the outcome totally unexpected. The sure-fire bill to grant the gun industry blanket immunity from lawsuits sputtered and finally failed in the U.S. Senate last week. Republicans had more than enough votes to pass the measure, but neither they nor the National Rifle Association had counted on being outmaneuvered by Democrats who managed to attach two sensible amendments to the bill. Rather than accept these riders, Republicans simply killed the bill.
But the 90-8 defeat of the gun immunity bill isn't quite as sweet as it sounds. It's essential that Congress extend the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons, which one of the amendments would have done. Because the current ban expires Sept. 13, Democrats have relatively little time to pressure GOP leaders to schedule a vote on separate legislation to extend the ban. Democrats have promised to get a vote on this issue during the presidential campaign if not before Sept. 13.
The ban would not apply to weapons favored by hunters but would apply to Uzis, AK-47s and other military-style weapons that have no purpose except to kill people. Some of these weapons are prized by collectors who like to use them for target practice. Gun fanciers point out that so-called "assault weapons" are no more lethal than other types of guns; they just look more menacing. Be that as it may, lifting the ban would be morally indefensible in a country still recovering from Columbine, the Washington, D.C.-area snipers and the carnage from handguns and rifles used recklessly to maim and murder innocent people, including children.
The other amendment would have required instant background checks on all customers at gun shows. Some gun shows, but by no means all, require that all sellers be federally licensed.
Gun control advocates should take President George W. Bush to task for trying to have it both ways in this election year. If he really favors background checks and extending the weapons ban, why did he urge the Senate not to add either measure to the gun immunity bill?
Gun makers say they need immunity because they are being sued out of existence for manufacturing a legal product. In fact, the manufacturers have yet to lose a lawsuit. Missouri is one of the states where the industry's position has prevailed in the courts against a lawsuit brought by the city of St. Louis.
During last week's Senate showdown, Missouri's GOP senators Christopher S. "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent voted against the amendments and against the final bill, in keeping with the NRA's request. Illinois' Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald voted for both amendments and against the final bill. Do Sens. Bond and Talent really want to thwart lawsuits brought on behalf of victims of the notorious Washington, D.C.-area snipers? That would be one of the cruel consequences of passing this gun immunity proposal.
At the very least, Mr. Bond and Mr. Talent should reconsider their positions if legislation to extend the ban comes up again this year.
Jeff
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...361?OpenDocument&Headline=Ban+assault+weapons
Ban assault weapons
03/10/2004
THE SHOWDOWN WAS SURPRISINGLY LOPSIDED, the outcome totally unexpected. The sure-fire bill to grant the gun industry blanket immunity from lawsuits sputtered and finally failed in the U.S. Senate last week. Republicans had more than enough votes to pass the measure, but neither they nor the National Rifle Association had counted on being outmaneuvered by Democrats who managed to attach two sensible amendments to the bill. Rather than accept these riders, Republicans simply killed the bill.
But the 90-8 defeat of the gun immunity bill isn't quite as sweet as it sounds. It's essential that Congress extend the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons, which one of the amendments would have done. Because the current ban expires Sept. 13, Democrats have relatively little time to pressure GOP leaders to schedule a vote on separate legislation to extend the ban. Democrats have promised to get a vote on this issue during the presidential campaign if not before Sept. 13.
The ban would not apply to weapons favored by hunters but would apply to Uzis, AK-47s and other military-style weapons that have no purpose except to kill people. Some of these weapons are prized by collectors who like to use them for target practice. Gun fanciers point out that so-called "assault weapons" are no more lethal than other types of guns; they just look more menacing. Be that as it may, lifting the ban would be morally indefensible in a country still recovering from Columbine, the Washington, D.C.-area snipers and the carnage from handguns and rifles used recklessly to maim and murder innocent people, including children.
The other amendment would have required instant background checks on all customers at gun shows. Some gun shows, but by no means all, require that all sellers be federally licensed.
Gun control advocates should take President George W. Bush to task for trying to have it both ways in this election year. If he really favors background checks and extending the weapons ban, why did he urge the Senate not to add either measure to the gun immunity bill?
Gun makers say they need immunity because they are being sued out of existence for manufacturing a legal product. In fact, the manufacturers have yet to lose a lawsuit. Missouri is one of the states where the industry's position has prevailed in the courts against a lawsuit brought by the city of St. Louis.
During last week's Senate showdown, Missouri's GOP senators Christopher S. "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent voted against the amendments and against the final bill, in keeping with the NRA's request. Illinois' Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald voted for both amendments and against the final bill. Do Sens. Bond and Talent really want to thwart lawsuits brought on behalf of victims of the notorious Washington, D.C.-area snipers? That would be one of the cruel consequences of passing this gun immunity proposal.
At the very least, Mr. Bond and Mr. Talent should reconsider their positions if legislation to extend the ban comes up again this year.
