In the Baltimore Sun 9-10-04

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Norton

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
2,718
This was in our lovely Baltimoron Sun this morning....my response to the editor follows[:




>>>ABSENT A MIRACLE, the 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons will expire on Monday. It's a particularly sad day for gun owners. It signals the rise of a foolish, extremist view of gun ownership rights that defies common sense and isn't shared by the majority. But one of the law's most visible supporters will probably not mourn its passing.
Four years ago, candidate George W. Bush stated his unequivocal support for the renewal of the assault weapons ban. It didn't even seem particularly controversial at the time (Presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford supported the ban). Mr. Bush hasn't publicly backed down from his position but, unfortunately, he hasn't lifted a finger for the cause either. In fact, when the issue came before the Senate last spring, administration officials worked against a renewal. The legislation died (despite a 52-47 vote of approval). It's never even gotten the courtesy of an up-or-down vote in the House.

When the ban runs out, what's going to happen? In the short term, probably not much. There were already plenty of loopholes in the original law so the effects might not be immediate. But it will mean that eventually more military-style guns - weapons that can be spray-fired rapidly from the hip by repeated pulls of the trigger - will end up in the hands of drug-traffickers, gangs and other criminal groups.

That's bad enough. But the ban's expiration suggests that this country is incapable of adopting - or enforcing - sensible gun laws of any stripe. Prosecute people who lie on background checks? Not happening. Revoke licenses of firearms dealers who break the law? Rarely. Pass legislation closing the gun-show loophole (if only to prevent terrorists from buying guns)? Even that seems to have little chance of passage in Congress.

It's clear that a majority of Americans support an extension of the assault weapons ban. Some polls suggest at least a 2-1 majority are in favor. Politicians like Mr. Bush know this, but they also know that people aren't that focused on gun laws right now, not with so many other problems facing this country.

Both Mr. Bush and his Democratic opponent, John F. Kerry, say they support the Second Amendment. And both have expressed support for banning assault weapons. But while Mr. Kerry has cast a vote to do just that, the White House's current occupant has chosen a disingenuous path. Mr. Bush claims to be working hard to make this country safer - yet he's willing to allow the spread of these dangerous weapons. <<<<<
 
My response....if you are so inclined, their address is [email protected]





>>>>>Where to begin on a recent editorial (September 10) that continues the big lies related to the sunsetting of the flawed 1994 Gun Ban?

Let us begin with the quote from the anti-gun agenda talking points when the editor refers to so-called assault weapons that, "can be spray-fired from the hip". This is nothing more than Hollywood dramatization and Brady bunch propaganda intended to frighten uninformed readers into believing that the firearms in question are fully automatic guns, which they are not.

Let us continue with the dreaded, "gun show loophole". All firearm transactions between an individual and the dealers at these shows must still be conducted according to state and federal laws. For regulated firearms such as handguns, this includes the mandatory seven day waiting period in Maryland. For non-regulated firearms, this means the National Instant Check System. In other words, these transactions are held to the same standard as those occuring in a storefront.

Finally let us examine John Kerry, the Second Amendment supporter. Mr. Kerry's record speaks volumes as to his intent regarding the Second Amendment. He has voted for every single piece of anti-firearm legislation placed before him. Furthermore, this staunch supporter of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban recently was the recipient of a shotgun that, according to a bill recently debated before the Senate, would have been banned. Add to this the fact that Mr. Kerry may have violated federal firearm statutes by accepting a firearm outside of his home state without the required transfer to a Federal Firearm License holder. This is yet another example of the elitist arrogance pervasive of those who believe that firearms ownership is a right only guaranteed the wealthy and powerful members of our society and that we serfs are not worthy of exercising that right.<<<<
 
I need to write a letter to the editor tonight on this "spray fired from the hip" thing. What morons. That seems to be the only basis for this ban. Heaven help us if the terrorists and gang bangers find out they can be more accurate and deadly if they use "aimed fire from the shoulder". :what:
 
They also ran this story yesterday:

Assault weapon ban heads for quiet death
Guns: Those who struggled to pass the measure 10 years ago wonder why it's being allowed to expire without a fight.

By Laura Sullivan
Sun National Staff
Originally published September 9, 2004
WASHINGTON - Byrl Phillips-Taylor sat in the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California 10 years ago, clutching a photo of her dead son, as Feinstein worked the phones to try to keep a nationwide ban on assault weapons in a crime bill. At the last minute, two senators changed sides and prevented a National Rifle Association-led effort from killing the ban.

"What I don't understand is why I am here again, now, after everything," Phillips-Taylor said yesterday in a Senate office building, holding the same photo. "I need somebody to explain to me how this is possible."

On Monday, with little fanfare or public notice - and barely a mention from President Bush or Sen. John Kerry - a ban on the sale of 19 kinds of military-style assault rifles, capable of firing dozens of bullets in seconds, will expire after 10 years.

Despite broad public support for the ban, Republican leaders said they intend to let the law lapse.

Yesterday, Phillips-Taylor, whose son was gunned down in 1989 by a teenager wielding an assault rifle, and more than three dozen police chiefs from across the country were waging an uphill fight to try to save the ban. They gathered on Capitol Hill with a few lawmakers to plead with the Republican-led Congress and Bush to renew it.

"I shudder to think what will happen if these weapons are made available again," said Charles H. Ramsey, the District of Columbia's police chief. "It would be a catastrophic leap backward."

Until the ban was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Ramsey and other chiefs said, their officers would often find themselves outgunned as criminals fired at will with assault rifles equipped with flash suppressors, stabilizers, telescoping handles and detachable magazines, while police struggled to reload their handguns.

Since then, the law has amassed wide support in opinion polls, according to a nonpartisan survey whose results were released in April.

The poll, by the National Annenberg Election Survey, found that 71 percent of Americans - including 64 percent of those with a gun in their home - favor extending the ban on assault weapons.

Supporters say the law has succeeded despite serious loopholes. They point to a drop in crime rates and the reduced number of police officers killed by what was the weapon of choice for many drug dealers.

"It has huge public support; why the hell is this looking like it's about to expire?" asked Eric Howard, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has spent weeks trying to bring attention to the law's expiration. "That's the question."

Matter of politics

The answer, supporters of the ban say, is politics.

Joe Polisar, police chief in Garden Grove, Calif., and president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, told lawmakers and supporters yesterday: "This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. This is a public safety issue."

Clinton has said that while he views the ban as one of his highest achievements, he believes it cost Democrats at least 20 seats in the House that year, when many were attacked as being broadly opposed to gun rights.

Democratic strategists also mention Bush's defeat of Al Gore in 2000, notably in Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas, three key battleground states particularly attuned to gun rights that were blanketed by NRA ads and get-out-the-vote efforts that year.

Supporters of the ban say that this time, many candidates in both parties, especially Democrats, seem hesitant to call attention to a touchy issue that might alienate some swing voters in hotly contended states.

"Democrats have become gun-shy," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun advocacy group. "To be honest, the issue really hurt Al Gore in 2000. But the [specific] issue that hurt him was gun licensing.

"As soon as you say licensing, [opponents] say licensing equals registration equals confiscation. The gun lobby quickly activates its grass roots."

Hot potato

Even though the assault weapons ban does not involve licensing, Rand said, the law has been lumped in with the broader debate: "On the national level, it's a hot potato."

Just yesterday, the NRA launched a $400,000-a-week ad to run in several battleground states, including Ohio, Missouri and Florida, warning that Kerry would erode gun owners' rights.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA, said in an interview that his group believes the ban has failed to reduce violent crime significantly and should be allowed to lapse. But he said the NRA's main objection to the law is that it appears to be "one more step toward banning more guns."

Indeed, the issue has become so vital to the NRA that top officials recently pulled the plug on a bill that was their top legislative priority - to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence - after Democrats attached an amendment to extend the assault weapons ban.

When Republicans couldn't remove the amendment, the NRA told Republican leaders to drop the whole bill.

Kerry's staff says he supports the assault weapons ban and notes that he flew back to Washington this spring for a key vote. But he and his campaign have remained quiet about the issue.

Bush, too, has not pushed for extending the ban, despite promises to renew it if a measure reached his desk.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said yesterday, "The president supports the reauthorization of current law."

But when asked whether Bush has nudged Republican leaders to renew the ban, McClellan said, "The president doesn't set the congressional timetable."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, all but dashed any remaining hope supporters had yesterday. "I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Frist told reporters.

Bush's and Kerry's silence marks a stark departure from 1994, when politicians, gun rights supporters and opponents loudly made their positions known. Both NRA officials and anti-gun groups note, though, that the country has been preoccupied this year with war, terrorism and the economy.

NRA officials nevertheless argue that fears about terrorism have increased Americans' desire to own high-powered weapons. But supporters of the ban say terrorism has had the opposite effect, leaving people fearful that terrorists could now more easily buy such weapons.

The ban itself, both sides agree, has been weakened by loopholes. Gun manufacturers have sidestepped the law by making cosmetic changes to weapons, such as the prohibited AK-47 and Uzi, that make them look different but perform almost identically to their banned counterparts.

The killer of Phillips-Taylor's son found his assault weapon in a locked shed before chasing 17-year-old Scott Phillips-Taylor through the woods, shooting him multiple times as he tried to run. Phillips-Taylor stood yesterday next to others who have suffered similar tragedies.

One was Tom Mauser, whose son was killed in the Columbine school massacre in Colorado.

Yesterday, he wore the shoes his son wore the day he died as a reminder. "How could they escape under that kind of firepower?" he asked.
 
My letter to the editor, in response:

Laura Sullivan's Sept 9th article on the "assault weapons" ban distorts, rather than reporting, the facts.

Her claim that the banned guns are "capable of firing dozens of bullets in seconds" seems to imply that they are machine guns, which is false. The banned guns will fire one bullet each time you pull the trigger, but they are NOT machine guns.

She talks about a "drop in crime rates," yet fails to say that crime rates started dropping two years before the ban was enacted. She talks about the "weapon of choice for many drug dealers," but neglects to mention that "assault weapons" were used in less that 2% of all crimes involving firearms, and 0.25% of all violent crimes BEFORE, as well as after, the ban. Both these facts can be verified by checking the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics.

Then she goes on to acuse gun manufacturers of "sidestepped the law by making cosmetic changes to weapons," when in fact all the law did was ban cosmetic features. The manufacturers were OBEYING the law by no longer making guns with those features.

The truth is, "assault weapons" have never been a source of violent crime, but the ban has had a huge negative effect on law abiding gun owners like myself. The truth is, gun control does not reduce crime. If it did, New York, DC, and LA would be non-violent utopias. Keeping violent criminals in jail, and allowing law abiding citizens the means to defend themselves both do far more to prevent crime.

If one looks at the facts as they are, rather than how Laura Sullivan reports them, it is easy to see why the "assault weapons" ban should be allowed to expire.
 
MikeK...thanks for the compliment...I think I'm well beyond the 30 day limit for my last letter so hopefully this one will get in.
 
"It has huge public support; why the hell is this looking like it's about to expire?" asked Eric Howard, ----------------------------------------

Keeping black people in chains once had huge public support. Poll taxes once had huge public support. Staying out of WWII once had huge public support.

Huge public support doesn't make something right or wrong. This is not a direct democracy, Eric. And 80 percent of the public knows little about firearms. So basically, I don't give an eff what the public thinks.

The AWB is an ineffective law. Period. All it does is prevent law-abiding people from buying guns they wish to buy. Nothing more. Thus, it should be sunsetted, as should ALL useless laws and regulations.
 
more military-style guns - weapons that can be spray-fired rapidly from the hip by repeated pulls of the trigger - will end up in the hands of drug-traffickers, gangs and other criminal groups.
Click to expand...
Wow! I need to stock up on some "assault weapons" to protect myself from these thugs.
 
Geez, they just keep spewing the BS!

Good example for the folks who don't think the media leans hard to the left. There are easy facts here that can be disproved if they bothered to fact check anything.

Give 'em hell Norton:D
 
Ohen Cepel,

You and the other MD THR members know what an uphill battle we face here in the so-called free state.......I'm just doing what I can;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top