Help me out with my editorial?

[Bad Words]

I am limited to 200 words - right now it's at 205. I started out far above that, and due to cutting a lot of things out, the letter doesn't flow very well. Also any suggestions to what should be added or deleted. It's 10:30 pacific right now, I plan to send the letter out at around noon pacific. The cartoon referenced is http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1074


In David Horsey's cartoon on Friday, he shows hunters using assault weapons to hunt deer with, while they thank congress for allowing the assault weapons ban to lapse. The flaw here is that while the hunters are depicted using assault weapons, the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with these weapons. Proponents of this bill decided to redefine the meaning of assault weapons. The way history has always defined assault weapons is as fully automatic or select fire weapons made for hand-held operation. However the assault weapons ban chooses to redefine this term. It is claimed that the ban outlaws such guns as the AK-47, TEC-9, and UZI. The truth is that these weapons were banned specifically by name, not for any feature that makes them especially dangerous... they just look scary. “Assault weapons†are generally less powerful than hunting rifles. The only piece of the legislation that doesn’t target cosmetic or ergonomic features is the high capacity magazine ban. But their definition of high capacity is in truth lower than standard capacity for many handguns. By the bill’s definition, almost every police officer in America wears an assault weapon on their belt. Lethality, danger, and crime have nothing to do with this bill.

 

[Deathwind]

In David Horsey's cartoon on Friday, he shows hunters using assault weapons to hunt deer with ("with" can be taken out here, not needed), while they thank congress for allowing the assault weapons ban to lapse. The flaw here is that while the hunters are depicted using assault weapons, the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with these weapons (awkward, way too many "weapons"...maybe "these firearms" or "these guns" substituted for "these weapons"?). Proponents of this bill decided to redefine the meaning of assault weapons. The way history has always defined assault weapons is as fully automatic or select fire weapons made for hand-held operation. However the assault weapons ban chooses to redefine this term (repetitive, you've already said that it redefines the term). It is claimed that the ban outlaws such guns as the AK-47, TEC-9, and UZI. The truth is that these weapons were banned specifically by name, not for any feature that makes them especially dangerous... they just look scary. “Assault weapons†are generally less powerful than hunting rifles. The only piece of the legislation that doesn’t target cosmetic or ergonomic features is the high capacity magazine ban. But their definition of high capacity is in truth lower than standard capacity for many handguns. By the bill’s definition, almost every police officer in America wears an assault weapon on their belt. Lethality, danger, and crime have nothing to do with this bill.

 

[Gordon Fink]

How about this …

In David Horsey’s cartoon on Friday, he shows hunters using “assault weapons†to hunt deer, while they thank Congress for allowing the “assault weapons†ban to lapse.

The flaw here is that the ban actually has nothing to do with real assault weapons. The military has defined assault rifles as fully automatic or select-fire weapons made for hand-held operation. However the “assault weapons†ban attempts to redefine and obfuscate this term. Proponents claim that the ban outlaws such guns as the AK-47, TEC-9, and Uzi. The truth is that these weapons were banned specifically by name, not for any feature that makes them especially dangerous—they just look “scary.â€

In fact, the banned “assault weapons†are generally less powerful than hunting rifles. The only piece of the legislation that doesn’t target cosmetic or ergonomic features is the high-capacity magazine ban, but its definition of high capacity is lower than standard capacity for many handgun magazines. By the bill’s definition, almost every police officer in America wears an assault weapon on his or her belt.

Lethality, danger, and crime have nothing to do with this bill.

~G. Fink

 

[moredes]

I made grammatical changes only; I attempted to leave content intact. I have noted my changes in bold letters:

In David Horsey's cartoon on Friday, he shows hunters using assault weapons to hunt deer XX while they thank congress for allowing the assault weapons ban to lapse. The flaw here is that while the hunters are depicted using assault weapons, theXX ban is unrelated to these weapons.

History (or, "Military convention") has XX defined assault weapons is as fully automatic or select fire weapons made for hand-held operation. However, the ban redefines the definition of "assault weapons". It is claimed that the ban outlaws XX guns such as the AK-47, TEC-9, and UZI. The truth is that these weapons were banned specifically by name (do you mean "reputation"?) , not for any feature that makes them especially dangerous... they just look scary. “Assault weapons†are generally less powerful than hunting rifles. (Do you mean, "they fire less powerful cartridges?"--semantically, they are at least as powerful as hunting rifles.) The only piece of the legislation that doesn’t target cosmetic or ergonomic features is the high capacity magazine ban. Their definition of high capacity is in truth lower than standard capacity for many handguns. By the bill’s definition, almost every police officer in America wears an assault weapon XX . Lethality, danger, and crime have nothing to do with this bill.

 

[Bad Words]

It has been sent. Thank you for your help, I used most of what was suggested.

In David Horsey's cartoon on Friday, he shows hunters using assault weapons to hunt deer while they thank congress for allowing the “assault weapons†ban to lapse.

The flaw here is that while the hunters are depicted using assault weapons, the ban is unrelated to these weapons. Military convention has defined assault rifles as fully automatic or select fire weapons made for hand-held operation. However, the ban attempts to redefine the term “assault weapons†and apply it to semi-automatic firearms. It is claimed that the ban outlaws guns such as the AK-47, TEC-9, and UZI. The truth is that these weapons were banned specifically by name, not for any feature that makes them especially dangerous... they just look scary.

In fact, the banned “assault weapons†are generally less powerful than hunting rifles. The only piece of the legislation that doesn’t target cosmetic or ergonomic features is the high-capacity magazine ban. However, the ban’s definition of “high capacity†is in truth lower than standard capacity for many handgun magazines. By the bill’s definition, almost every police officer in America wears an assault weapon on his or her belt.

Lethality, danger, and crime have nothing to do with this bill.

 

[John Ross]

You asked for help--here's my rewrite.

The mag-cap issue is the important one to gun guys, but NOT the general public. Leave it out--it's boring. Don't get too technical--they stop reading. Instead, use easy-to-understand examples and show the uninformed non-shooter how ridiculous the ban is.

=============================================

David Horsey’s Friday cartoon shows hunters using “assault weapons†to hunt deer, while they thank Congress for allowing the “assault weapons†ban to lapse.

The ban has been a big lie from Day One. It has nothing to do with real assault weapons. Assault weapons are hand-held fully automatic military arms--machine guns. Machine guns have been illlegal to own except under very special circumstances since 1934. This ban redefined the term "assault weapons" to mean APPEARANCE. It is a ban on guns that only *look* like military machine guns but are not. The banned guns don't do anything special—they just look “scary.â€

Whether anyone (like Horsey's cartoon hunters) might want to hunt with a gun that *looks* like a military arm (and is much LESS powerful than a traditional hunting rifle) should not be the government's business. What's next--a ban on the sale of olive drab paint to people who want to drive around in a military-looking Jeep instead of a bright red one?

The Clinton "assault weapons" ban was one more slice-at-a-time example of incremental infringements on our rights. That Congress is letting this sham expire is clearly the right thing to do.

JR

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Good letter!

 

[Bad Words]

JR - that letter is so far different from mine, you could send it in and give no credit to me (and I see no reason why you shouldn't). The part about machine guns being illegal except under very special circumstances I would consider incorrect though. Almost anyone can get one under any circumstance, the biggest barrier is affording one. I was thinking of using some analogies, like an SUV ban that defines SUV's as two-wheeled, man-powered, pedal-driven vehicles, but I didn't want to be too condescending to anyone and I didn't have enough room since the paper asks that they remain under 200 words.

ReadyontheRight - thank you. I see a lot of editorials at these message boards that impress me, and frankly I was scared of being ridiculed when I posted my own.

 

[moredes]

I see a lot of editorials at these message boards that impress me, and frankly I was scared of being ridiculed when I posted my own.

Oh, I was gonna ridicule you....I just couldn't do it without an editor's help.

 

[ClonaKilty]

The part about machine guns being illegal except under very special circumstances I would consider incorrect though. Almost anyone can get one under any circumstance, the biggest barrier is affording one.

Not to pick nits, but there are many cases where local Sherrifs won't sign off on an individual's CLass III/NFA weapons permit. IMHO, JR's description is right on.

 

[magsnubby]

Bad Words,
Good letter. Good job.

A hearty pat on the back and a big "Atta boy!" for you.

Glad to see i'm not the only one who still writes letters.

 

[JohnKSa]

David Horsey's cartoon on Friday shows hunters using assault weapons to hunt deer while they thank Congress for allowing the assault weapons ban to lapse. The cartoon is flawed--the hunters are depicted using assault weapons but in reality the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with these weapons. The crafters of the bill redefined the term "assault weapon". The accurate definition of an assault weapon is: A fully automatic or select fire weapon made for hand-held operation. A definition related to function. But the assault weapon ban's main focus is cosmetic features, not function.

It is claimed that the ban outlaws such guns as the AK-47, TEC-9, and UZI. The truth is that these weapons were banned specifically by name, not for any feature that makes them especially dangerous... but because they look "scary." The reality is that "Assault weapons†are generally less powerful than hunting rifles.

The only piece of the legislation that doesn’t target cosmetic features is the high capacity magazine ban. Again, this required some terms to be redefined. The NEW definition of "high capacity" is much lower than what had been previously called standard capacity for many handguns. The new definition means that almost every police officer in America wears an assault weapon on their belt.

This bill is about emotion and appearance--it has little or nothing to do with lethality, danger, and crime.