Drizzt
Member
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
May 30, 2003, Friday
SECTION: COMMENTARY
KR-ACC-NO: K2153
LENGTH: 837 words
HEADLINE: Not much gunfire behind the political smoke
BYLINE: By J.R. Labbe
BODY:
Of all the issues that should draw the attention of American politicians, it's astounding how much air is being wasted on debating _ once again _ the federal assault weapons ban.
But then, issues that evoke emotional rather than intellectual responses always bubble to the top when election time rolls around. And don't kid yourselves; we're deep into Campaign 2004.
Apparently the incumbents and the editorial writers who championed the ban in 1994 didn't learn much about the topic during the intervening years. They still can't get the terminology right.
The ban didn't outlaw high-capacity "clips." Clips are for paper and little girls' hair. It's a magazine.
Hair-splitting, you say? Not if you're trying to sound credible. Is it too much to ask that opinion shapers and lawmakers know the fundamentals of an issue that they intend to exploit?
Guess so, but then again, facts didn't get in the way of the ban's approval.
Fact: The 1994 "assault weapons" ban was about symbolism and cosmetics, not crime.
The guns covered by the Clinton-era ban, which sunsets in September 2004 if Congress doesn't vote to extend it, are semiautomatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. Some of them are made to resemble military-style small arms but are mechanically indistinguishable from traditional sporting rifles.
As much as gun-control advocates will proclaim the awful lethality of these firearms, the reality is that they work just like many of the guns that are considered acceptable.
Fact: "Assault weapons" aren't the guns of choice for America's criminals.
Even the feds acknowledge that. A 1996 National Institute of Justice report on the impact of the ban said that "the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country. ...
"Although the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that the weapons posed a threat to public safety because they are capable of firing many shots rapidly."
Fact: The "assault weapons" ban represents the beginning of the end for private gun ownership. And no, that isn't over-reaction from a self-proclaimed gun rights advocate. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein acknowledged as much during a Feb. 5, 1995, "60 Minutes" interview:
"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," said the California Democrat. "I could not do that. The votes weren't there."
Did she talk about carve-outs for sporting guns or that .38 revolver you keep in the night stand for personal protection? No.
Question: Would Feinstein have turned in her own handgun had she been successful in '94? She, after all, is one of the chosen few in the Golden State who actually has a carry permit. Or is she, in reality, just like Mr. and Mrs. America, who'll turn in their guns the day that all the bad guys hand over theirs?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Feinstein.
According to a recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times _ which used the term "clip" instead of "magazine" _ the "quiet majority who worry about their families' safety" support extending the ban. The implication was that those of us who believe in a citizen's right to gun ownership don't worry about our family's safety.
Hmmm. One of the reasons Mr. and Mrs. America own firearms is personal safety _ and they "don't" worry. Guess they're right.
The old need-vs.-want argument always surfaces in this debate, as it did from a Fort Worth Star-Telegram letter-to-the-editor writer who said he supports extending the ban. "There's absolutely no reason that anyone needs an M-16 or an AK-47," he wrote.
And first-graders don't need ice cream and soccer moms don't need Ford Excursions.
Want is a whole other issue.
And what the gun banners want is to make a legal product illegal so the question of what gun rights folks want becomes moot.
"These guns are not for duck hunting; they are weapons of outlaw terror." The L.A. Times again.
Talk about your hyperbole. But then, the writer probably doesn't understand that, regardless of how one parses the phrase about "a well-regulated militia," the Second Amendment is about the fundamental right of self-defense and not duck hunting.
Extend the ban, don't extend the ban. Frankly, other issues are more crucial to this nation's prosperity and safety.
But the gun grabbers may want to keep this in mind: After the ban went into effect in 1994, the American Shooting Sports Council presented President Clinton, in absentia, with its Firearms Salesman of the Year Award.
Gun sales _ and NRA memberships _ skyrocketed.
___
ABOUT THE WRITER
Jill "J.R." Labbe is a senior editorial writer and columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Readers may write to her at 400 W. 7th Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, or via e-mail at [email protected].
May 30, 2003, Friday
SECTION: COMMENTARY
KR-ACC-NO: K2153
LENGTH: 837 words
HEADLINE: Not much gunfire behind the political smoke
BYLINE: By J.R. Labbe
BODY:
Of all the issues that should draw the attention of American politicians, it's astounding how much air is being wasted on debating _ once again _ the federal assault weapons ban.
But then, issues that evoke emotional rather than intellectual responses always bubble to the top when election time rolls around. And don't kid yourselves; we're deep into Campaign 2004.
Apparently the incumbents and the editorial writers who championed the ban in 1994 didn't learn much about the topic during the intervening years. They still can't get the terminology right.
The ban didn't outlaw high-capacity "clips." Clips are for paper and little girls' hair. It's a magazine.
Hair-splitting, you say? Not if you're trying to sound credible. Is it too much to ask that opinion shapers and lawmakers know the fundamentals of an issue that they intend to exploit?
Guess so, but then again, facts didn't get in the way of the ban's approval.
Fact: The 1994 "assault weapons" ban was about symbolism and cosmetics, not crime.
The guns covered by the Clinton-era ban, which sunsets in September 2004 if Congress doesn't vote to extend it, are semiautomatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. Some of them are made to resemble military-style small arms but are mechanically indistinguishable from traditional sporting rifles.
As much as gun-control advocates will proclaim the awful lethality of these firearms, the reality is that they work just like many of the guns that are considered acceptable.
Fact: "Assault weapons" aren't the guns of choice for America's criminals.
Even the feds acknowledge that. A 1996 National Institute of Justice report on the impact of the ban said that "the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country. ...
"Although the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that the weapons posed a threat to public safety because they are capable of firing many shots rapidly."
Fact: The "assault weapons" ban represents the beginning of the end for private gun ownership. And no, that isn't over-reaction from a self-proclaimed gun rights advocate. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein acknowledged as much during a Feb. 5, 1995, "60 Minutes" interview:
"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," said the California Democrat. "I could not do that. The votes weren't there."
Did she talk about carve-outs for sporting guns or that .38 revolver you keep in the night stand for personal protection? No.
Question: Would Feinstein have turned in her own handgun had she been successful in '94? She, after all, is one of the chosen few in the Golden State who actually has a carry permit. Or is she, in reality, just like Mr. and Mrs. America, who'll turn in their guns the day that all the bad guys hand over theirs?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Feinstein.
According to a recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times _ which used the term "clip" instead of "magazine" _ the "quiet majority who worry about their families' safety" support extending the ban. The implication was that those of us who believe in a citizen's right to gun ownership don't worry about our family's safety.
Hmmm. One of the reasons Mr. and Mrs. America own firearms is personal safety _ and they "don't" worry. Guess they're right.
The old need-vs.-want argument always surfaces in this debate, as it did from a Fort Worth Star-Telegram letter-to-the-editor writer who said he supports extending the ban. "There's absolutely no reason that anyone needs an M-16 or an AK-47," he wrote.
And first-graders don't need ice cream and soccer moms don't need Ford Excursions.
Want is a whole other issue.
And what the gun banners want is to make a legal product illegal so the question of what gun rights folks want becomes moot.
"These guns are not for duck hunting; they are weapons of outlaw terror." The L.A. Times again.
Talk about your hyperbole. But then, the writer probably doesn't understand that, regardless of how one parses the phrase about "a well-regulated militia," the Second Amendment is about the fundamental right of self-defense and not duck hunting.
Extend the ban, don't extend the ban. Frankly, other issues are more crucial to this nation's prosperity and safety.
But the gun grabbers may want to keep this in mind: After the ban went into effect in 1994, the American Shooting Sports Council presented President Clinton, in absentia, with its Firearms Salesman of the Year Award.
Gun sales _ and NRA memberships _ skyrocketed.
___
ABOUT THE WRITER
Jill "J.R." Labbe is a senior editorial writer and columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Readers may write to her at 400 W. 7th Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, or via e-mail at [email protected].
as a 'token' to even it out a little.