Has Hell frozen over? SF Chron runs pro-gun piece

Status
Not open for further replies.

stv

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
407
Location
SF CA
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/EDGIV5EQ6B1.DTL


2nd Amendment
Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in

Chris W. Cox
Sunday, March 7, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The ban on semi-automatic firearms -- which an anti-gun Congress redefined as "assault weapons" in the 1994 crime bill -- will expire Sept. 13. A drumbeat has begun in the national media to "reauthorize" the ban, and some politicians are dancing to that familiar beat.

In the House, HR2038 has been introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. Instead of a "reauthorization" of the earlier ban, McCarthy wants to ban millions more guns and begin a backdoor national registration scheme. All told, HR2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by the assault-weapons ban sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." Those are the only words gun owners should ever need to remember. Never has the anti-gun agenda been stated more succinctly or more honestly. Now Feinstein is back trying to keep alive the ban inflicted on law-abiding Americans. Joined by comrades such as Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., she introduced S1034, "Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003." It makes the Clinton gun ban permanent and also bans the importation of large-capacity magazines.

Certainly Feinstein's bill is less "ambitious" than McCarthy's and undoubtedly will be portrayed as a "reasonable," and "common-sense" alternative by firearm-phobic editorial writers. The truth, of course, lies elsewhere, as Schumer confessed to the Los Angeles Times: "We know if we push it too far, we'll have no bill." Translation: "Don't threaten Mr. and Mrs. America too much." Don't remind them that the semi-automatic firearms they own for self-defense, hunting and target shooting function identically to those "assault weapons" you want to ban.

The "assault weapon" debate, as we saw in 1994, is ruled by emotion, not by fact, and therefore it was a tailor-made issue of the ethically challenged Clinton administration and its allies. But the truth can not be buried forever, not even in Washington. That's exactly why in the elections following enactment of the ban, gun owners went to the polls in great numbers and unseated the first speaker of the House in 134 years. That's why Bill Clinton told the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "the fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress." That's why in March 1996, 239 members of the House of Representatives voted across party lines to repeal the Clinton gun ban.

The debate is not really about so-called "assault weapons." It's about banning guns. It's about gun prohibitionists searching for the easiest target of opportunity. They're going after guns claiming, without a shred of credible evidence, that these guns are the "weapons of choice" of criminals. It's a lie. A day after Clinton signed his gun-banning crime bill into law, a Washington Post editorial admitted: "Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."

In the words of the radical Violence Policy Center: "The public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." Machine guns were, of course, effectively banned in 1934.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, captures the issue well: "The 'assault weapon' ban sets a dangerous precedent precisely because the justification for it is so weak. It suggests that you don't need a good reason to limit the right to keep and bear arms, and it invites further restrictions down the road. As far as the gun banners are concerned, that is the whole point."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn more
Who: Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association

What: Address to the Commonwealth Club -- "The Second Amendment as a Freedom Issue." LaPierre will discuss gun ownership and personal liberty.

When: Thursday, 6 p.m.

Where: Crowne Plaza Hotel, Union Square Ballroom, 480 Sutter St., San Francisco

Admission: $15 for members, $30 for nonmembers

Reservations: Call (415) 597-6700 or visit the Commonwealth Club office, 595 Market St., 2nd floor, San Francisco.

Online: www.commonwealthclub.org/reservations.html

Chris W. Cox is chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.
 
I'm glad this piece got through the editors. Presumably though, it was because it was so "Pro-NRA" and "so full of lies" that they wanted their readership to see it...:rolleyes:
 
Don't forget to click on the link and read the actual article. It is important to train these newspapers that:

Pro-Second editorials and articles = viewers = ad revenue
 
Excellent point. Profit is motive #1. Wonder if they're software tracks the IP address of readers, and can they figure that these articles are getting nation/(world?)wide exposure.
 
I remember that the SF Chronicle has run pro-AWB editorials. I imagine that, like the Seattle Times, they like to stir the pot every so often, so they don't appear totally one-sided.
 
I see that Mr. LaPierre is speaking at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Thursday. It would be great if some SF Highroader could attend and report back. I wonder what kind of reception he'll have there. I had a flyer from the club a few years back (they wanted me to join, fat chance) and it seems that nearly all of their speakers were on the left side of the spectrum.
 
Now Feinstein is back trying to keep alive the ban inflicted on law-abiding Americans. Joined by comrades such as Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.,

Funny.. I swear I have seen all 3 at the shootin' range before... Oh.. oops... they were the targets people were shooting at... that's right...:scrutiny:

The problem they are having is, most of us have actually read 1984.. and Animal Farm... a well read group is hard to lie to...
 
You realize this piece was written by the NRA's chief lobbyist? Makes it all the more remarkable that the Chronicle printed it.
 
Perhaps the timing is right for the AWB. Everyone has recognized the role of the NRA in 2000 and this year is a political year. Re-enacting the bill would be a risky political decision.
 
Bump to top. This is a great article. The fight's only begun folks. Click through to the newspaper and show them ther are a lot of us gunnies out here.

I'd also suggest pulling out some wording from this article for your weekly letters and e-mails to your senators and congress critters between now and September. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top