Moparmike
Member
Editorial about AWB:
And my letter:
Any ideas?
Thanks,
MIke
It's probably best that the ban on assault weapons expired yesterday. There haven't been enough cases of terror or hostage situations within our borders, so it's about time we threw our neighborhood criminals a bone.
Unfortunately, that mentality isn't too unheard of. Gun advocates might tout their right to bear arms, but a line was drawn a decade ago that should have satisfied both sides of that argument. Naturally, an American citizen should have the right to defend his or her family. And surely, anyone should be able to hunt game and fire some weapons for sport, but who could actually benefit from high-powered combat weapons? What family is under such aggressive attack as to constitute a machine gun?
Not to mention an already-devastating battle to keep American schools safe. One need only think of the series of school shootings that transformed the way parents decide where to send their children. Imagine the damage a troubled teen could do if he or she were to obtain an AK-47.
In the meantime, the Bush administration looks the other way while continuing to tighten "homeland security" and taking away basic American rights under the Patriot Act. While assault weapons can now be made ready-to-order, the government can snoop and violate privacy rights for our "own good." But the government probably knows what's best for everyone, right?
Prior to the ban's expiration, the nation touted a drop in crime, a trend that should have pointed to the effectiveness of the regulations.
Bush promised during his election bid in 2000 to continue support of the ban should it reappear on his desk, but nothing has since been done.
Further, Democrats are hesitant to take a position for fear of losing backing as they have in the past. But Sen. John Kerry has taken this opportunity to criticize his opponent.
"Today George Bush chose to make the job of terrorists easier and to make the job of America's police officers harder, and that's just plain wrong," he said.
Kerry's statement points out the hypocritical nature of the Bush administration. While Bush may not have had direct control over the fate of the ban, he hid behind his Republican collegues in Washington and failed to take necessary measures to encure public saftey in American streets and communities.
When confronted about his abandoned attempts to keep assault weapons off city streets, Bush representatives say he has little to do with that type of legislative process.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the president "does not set the legislative timetable."
Maybe he overlooked relentless efforts by the President to pass legislation banning gay marriage or late-term pregnancy abortions. Obviously, the President's got it in him to fight for SOMETHING.
But Bush chose the votes of his friends at the National Rifle Association over the voices of concerned parents and frightened civilians. The next logical step for the Bush administration would be to push for the passage of legislation that would eliminate background checks for people buying guns. After all, anyone seeking to use a high-powered weapon likely doesn't have any time to waste.
A major arbuement of the Bush campaign has been the safety of Americans in an age of immanent and lurking threat. Our phones can be legally tapped and our e-mails searched for fishy language, but now nothing prevents a disgruntled worker from purchasing an automatic weapon. It seems the last thing America needs following terrorist attacks and an unpopular foriegn war is more easily accessible deadly weapons. cuss: )
Perhaps a major difference in American society and those dominated by guerrillas and terror groups is the accessibility of deadly weapons. Hopefully Congress will come to its senses before the families of crime victims long for the days of governmental protection from militant killers stockpiling weapons next door.
And my letter:
I need to shrink it down to 300 words. It is currently at 383, and that was after I decided against a few things.After reading the editorial about the so-called “Assault Weapons Banâ€, I felt that I must write to dispel the myths and falsehoods presented as facts.
First, the Assault Weapons Ban has no effect on machine guns, which can fire more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. These firearms have been HIGHLY regulated and almost impossible to get without lots of cash and ATF red tape since 1934.
Second, criminals do not use semi-automatic firearms purchased in a gun store, where a background check, conducted through the FBI, is performed. They buy guns off the streets where felons are not prosecuted for buying a gun illegally. Yet, legal firearm enthusiasts are blamed and punished.
Third, AK-47’s have been banned from importation since 1989, through an executive order from President George H.W. Bush.
Fourth, terrorists have readily accessible fully-automatic assault rifles in their home countries that can be purchased for less than $100, unlike the $500-1200 semi-automatic clones seen in the US. It would be quite easy to smuggle one across the US-Mexico border. Buying one here would be outright stupid.
Fifth, a search of FBI crime statistics would point out that “assault weapons†were used in less than 2% of crimes before the ban and during the ban.
Sixth, if the writer of the editorial would have done any research at all, he/she would know that the ban was strictly cosmetic. It banned features that added nothing to the accuracy or potency of the ammunition being fired, and that had never been used in helping to commit a crime. Would anyone care to tell me about the plague of drive-by bayonetings in 1993? Of course not, because it never happened. The AWB was a feel-good law, plain and simple. Anyone who thinks different is deluding themselves and ignoring the facts.
Why is the writer calling them “high powered� The main caliber of the AR-15 (a semi-automatic M-16 clone) is 5.56mm, or .223 inches. It isn’t even legal to use for deer hunting because of how weak it is!
And I take personal insult at the insinuation that because one collects firearms that he or she automatically becomes a “militant killer.†This paper is representative of an education institution. Lies, myths and slander perpetuated as truth are things that should never find its way here.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
MIke