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

Found on AWBansunset.com

Discussion in 'Legal' started by LAR-15, Jun 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Mar 1, 2004
    This Week's Edition:

    June 7, 2004

    IPGV Editorial

    Spin Doesn't Stop Bullets

    John Johnson

    As you are aware if you have been a regular reader of First Monday and Every Monday, the 1994 federal assault weapons ban will expire on September 13, 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. Two competing assault weapon bills have been introduced in Congress. H.R. 2038/S.1431 would reauthorize and strengthen the assault weapons ban to meet the original intent of Congress (Reauthorization and Strengthening), whereas H.R.3831/S.2109 would extend the current assault weapons ban in its present form for another 10 years (Straight Reauthorization).
    IPGV’s position has been from the beginning and remains that we support, and only support, “a strong and effective assault weapons ban as provided in H.R.2038/S.1431.†Why do we only support reauthorization and strengthening and not straight reauthorization? For the simple reason that the 1994 assault weapons ban is not working as intended by Congress when it passed the ban in 1994.

    First of all, the 1994 assault weapons ban was not a “ban†at all. It was intended to be a “freeze.†It attempted to limit the number of assault weapons in the civilian population to 1994 levels by prohibiting the manufacture, possession, and transfer of new semiautomatic assault weapons. It banned 19 specific assault weapons by name, including “copies and duplicates†of such weapons. However, named assault weapons lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994, the day the assault weapons ban took effect, were not covered by the ban and can still be legally possessed and sold.

    If the assault weapons ban had worked as intended, then the only assault weapons in the general population today would be the so-called pre-ban assault weapons that were “grandfathered†by the 1994 assault weapons ban.

    Has that been the case? Far from it. Almost immediately, gun manufacturers found that they could evade the assault weapons ban by making minor cosmetic modifications to their weapons, renaming them, and marketing them as legal post-ban models. For example, the Colt Match Target .223-caliber semiautomatic assault rifle has the same firing characteristics as the Colt AR15 .223-caliber semiautomatic assault rifle banned by name in the 1994 assault weapons ban. And there are many other examples. A 2003 Autoloaders Buyers Guide lists over 125 different makes and models of AR15-type assault rifles made by more than a dozen U.S. manufacturers. To say AR15s have been banned is perpetuating a hoax.

    To the best of my knowledge, virtually every single assault weapon banned by name in the 1994 assault weapons ban (AK-47s, UZIs, AR15s, TEC-DC9s, MAK 10s) is now being sold under another name. The vice president of Bushmaster Firearms, manufacturer of a full product line of AR15-type semiautomatic assault rifles, including the XM15 E2S .223-caliber assault rifle used in the Washington, DC-area sniper shootings in 2002, has said that Bushmaster sales have increased 900 percent, and revenues have increased 10 to 15 times, since the 1994 assault weapons ban was enacted.

    It is as if Congress had passed a ban on Sport Utility Vehicles by name (Ford Explorer, Chevy Blazer, Dodge Durango, Honda Element, Toyota Sequoia, and Volkswagen Touareg). But then allowed Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, and Volkswagen to change the wheel rims, chrome trim, and interior and market the vehicle as a post-ban SUV. Most people would say that such a ban is ineffective in getting SUVs off of the streets. I am not kidding folks; this is how ineffective the assault weapons ban has been at banning the manufacturer, possession, and transfer of new assault weapons. By any objective measure of the number of new assault weapons it has banned, the 1994 assault weapons ban has been a total failure.

    Given the facts, it is hard to understand why any gun violence prevention group would support a straight reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban in its present form. Unfortunately, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Gun Control) supports the straight reauthorization bill H.R.3831/S.2109.

    As previously stated, IPGV does not support a straight reauthorization of the assault weapons ban because it would not reduce the availability of assault weapons to civilians one bit. We consider that simply maintaining the status quo would be a “victory†for gun manufacturers, like Bushmaster, because they could continue to manufacturer and market AR15-type semiautomatic assault rifles to civilians without interruption. Furthermore, maintaining the status quo would be a “defeat†for law enforcement because it would do nothing to reduce the threat of assault weapons to the nation’s law enforcement officers, who strongly supported the original ban in 1994.

    It pains me for IPGV to be at odds with the Brady Campaign on this vitally important issue. If Congress were to reauthorize the assault weapons ban in its present form, the Brady Campaign would “spin†it as a great victory for gun control.

    Unfortunately, spin doesn’t stop bullets.

    2004 Iowans For The Prevention of Gun Violence
  2. Night Guy

    Night Guy Member

    Dec 24, 2003
    Indianapolis, IN
  3. Stebalo

    Stebalo Member

    Apr 26, 2004
    I second that motion.

    :barf: :barf:
  4. Mulliga

    Mulliga Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    Gainesville, Florida
    Thirded. :):barf: :barf: :barf:
  5. Combat-wombat

    Combat-wombat Member

    Jan 2, 2003
  6. racenutz

    racenutz Member

    Nov 3, 2003
    Bellevue, NE
    Those idiots are in the same building as my chiropractor.
  7. Harry Tuttle

    Harry Tuttle Member

    Nov 14, 2003
    The reason the 1994 AWB was made into law was because,
    A) It was tucked inside 300+ pages of Omnibus crime bill
    B) It was committee modified to be "acceptable" by the Gun Industry.

    Without the "loophole" to allow postban sales of neutered semi auto black rifles,
    it would have not passed.
  8. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Apr 26, 2004
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    From the extreme gun-grabbers' point of view, the AWB was a failure if it was designed to freeze the number of semi-auto rifles available to the public in the same way that the FOPA '86 froze the number of machine guns. Data from the VPC's own web site proves it.

    Go to http://www.vpc.org/resource/index.htm and check out the number of rifles sold by Bushmaster and Colt in pre-ban years versus post-ban years. The AWB created a surge in their sales like nothing else could have. I'm sure they laughed all the way to the bank.
  9. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Dec 30, 2002
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Dissent in the ranks of the grabbers. Got 'em on the run! :evil:
  10. flatrock

    flatrock Member

    Mar 23, 2004
    Wow, all those scarry assault weapons have been sold, yet crimes using them have not increased? Sounds like the original premise of the law is faulty.
  11. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Mar 18, 2003

    They admit it does not work

    Crime has decreased overall anyway

    But they just HAVE to get a new ban:banghead:
  12. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Jun 17, 2003
    SW Ohio
    Come and get 'em, John-boy.

    Come and get 'em.
  13. USAFNoDAk

    USAFNoDAk Member

    Mar 2, 2004
    Yes, the antis want a new ban. This is typical incrementalism and liberal MO. Take what you can get now from a political standpoint, knowing full well it won't work from a pragmatic standpoint (reducing crime in this case), then argue that the law isn't strong enough because the opponents have tricked the law or found loopholes in it to work around it, and that is why the law is not producing its predicted results.

    Imagine Yoda's voice saying, "The SLIPPERY SLOPE of the dark side, in plain view we have here".
  14. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Jan 28, 2003
    South Texas
    Flatrock and Obiwan have it right - even the opposition admits that "By any objective measure of the number of new assault weapons it has banned, the 1994 assault weapons ban has been a total failure," yet they want more of exactly the same. One could almost think that they work for Bushmaster, et al, but we all know differently.

    The simple fact is that with virtually all of the pre-ban weapons and literally millions more functionally identical guns "on the street," we have LESS crime. The AWB was sold as a crime-reducing measure, and in that it has demonstrated its total lack of relevance. The law needs to die of old age on 9/13/04.

    The only part that has ever REALLY bothered me - from the standpoint of availability/cost of stuff that I want - is the magazine ban. They last far less time and can take far less abuse than entire rifles, esp. when one can get brand new replacement parts for rifles but not for the magazine bodies. The whole law does bother me - a lot - because it established the precedent that a class of weapons can be banned from further sale by an act of Congress and the stroke of a President's pen. That idea
  15. Treylis

    Treylis Member

    Dec 14, 2003
    Tempe, Arizona
    Perhaps pay them a visit?
  16. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Apr 19, 2004
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Spin Doesn't Stop Bullets

    Of course not! It stabilizes them; that's the whole point!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page