http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Winnipeg/Lyn_Cockburn/2004/09/14/629433.html
Can't get enough rapid fire power
By LYN COCKBURN -- Winnipeg Sun
To celebrate the beginning of the school year, the U.S. Congress let the 10-year ban on assault weapons lapse. And so, as of yesterday, Tuesday, Sept. 14, the average American citizen can legally buy a military-style assault rifle such as an AK-47 which can shoot 600 rounds a minute. And by the way, those 600 rounds will cover a distance of up to 300 metres.
Makes me feel safer.
There's a certain Zen-like peace in knowing that if anybody tries to break into my house I can off him with an assault weapon rather than with the handgun I keep under my pillow. Why should a thief get shot only once or twice when I can blast him 600 times?
We are not going to discuss the possibility that the thief will also have an AK-47. As one gun shop owner said during a TV interview (he was looking directly into the TV camera and I felt as though he was speaking right to me): "It's all about balance," he said. "Sure there are lots of criminals on the streets with weapons but if citizens have as many guns as the criminals, it all works out."
That's a positive way of looking at it. Sort of like voting. If I vote Democrat and you vote Republican, we cancel each other out. Then we can get together and shoot anyone who votes for Ralph Nader.
So what's the history on this silly 10-year ban on assault weapons that so unbalanced our neighbours to the south? In 1994, after much lobbying by anti-gun groups (the NRA, by the way, publishes a comprehensive list of all those organizations, religious, secular, medical, etc, which it labels "anti-gun"; go to www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets to see that list; and shame on the YWCA and the Physicians for Social Justice, which are but two of the organizations listed -- they obviously don't agree with the charismatic gun shop owner mentioned above), then-president Bill Clinton in a moment taken from frolicking with interns, signed the bill to ban such firearms. Thankfully, as part of the deal, he had to agree to limit its duration to 10 years. Even more thankfully, the 10 years are up.
One of those very powerful anti-gun groups is of course the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence which was formed after the March 30, 1981, assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in which presidential press secretary James Brady was shot and partially paralysed. The wimpy Brady and his wife took exception to this event and ignored the greater good which comes from promoting arms. Instead they started lobbying for greater restrictions on gun ownership.
And for some reason, police chiefs across the U.S. were not happy with the lifting of the ban, a fact which is balanced somewhat by the NRA's statement on its website which advised U.S. citizens to "urge your member of Congress to publicly oppose renewal of the ban and instead to support legislation that will actually remove violent criminals from America's streets."
One such politician, U.S. Representative Butch Otter (R-Idaho) praised the demise of the federal law: "President Clinton's so-called 'assault weapons' ban was nothing more than a sop to anti-gun liberals. It provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties."
Bang on Butch. Gun ownership is certainly part of a citizen's liberty. I count the freedom to own an AK-47 as inviolate, comparable only to say, freedom of religion.
I can but dream of the day when Canada changes its laws to encourage all its citizens to buy guns, particularly assault weapons. Trouble is, if I were ever permitted to legally buy an AK-47 in Canada, I'd have to register it.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Can't get enough rapid fire power
By LYN COCKBURN -- Winnipeg Sun
To celebrate the beginning of the school year, the U.S. Congress let the 10-year ban on assault weapons lapse. And so, as of yesterday, Tuesday, Sept. 14, the average American citizen can legally buy a military-style assault rifle such as an AK-47 which can shoot 600 rounds a minute. And by the way, those 600 rounds will cover a distance of up to 300 metres.
Makes me feel safer.
There's a certain Zen-like peace in knowing that if anybody tries to break into my house I can off him with an assault weapon rather than with the handgun I keep under my pillow. Why should a thief get shot only once or twice when I can blast him 600 times?
We are not going to discuss the possibility that the thief will also have an AK-47. As one gun shop owner said during a TV interview (he was looking directly into the TV camera and I felt as though he was speaking right to me): "It's all about balance," he said. "Sure there are lots of criminals on the streets with weapons but if citizens have as many guns as the criminals, it all works out."
That's a positive way of looking at it. Sort of like voting. If I vote Democrat and you vote Republican, we cancel each other out. Then we can get together and shoot anyone who votes for Ralph Nader.
So what's the history on this silly 10-year ban on assault weapons that so unbalanced our neighbours to the south? In 1994, after much lobbying by anti-gun groups (the NRA, by the way, publishes a comprehensive list of all those organizations, religious, secular, medical, etc, which it labels "anti-gun"; go to www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets to see that list; and shame on the YWCA and the Physicians for Social Justice, which are but two of the organizations listed -- they obviously don't agree with the charismatic gun shop owner mentioned above), then-president Bill Clinton in a moment taken from frolicking with interns, signed the bill to ban such firearms. Thankfully, as part of the deal, he had to agree to limit its duration to 10 years. Even more thankfully, the 10 years are up.
One of those very powerful anti-gun groups is of course the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence which was formed after the March 30, 1981, assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in which presidential press secretary James Brady was shot and partially paralysed. The wimpy Brady and his wife took exception to this event and ignored the greater good which comes from promoting arms. Instead they started lobbying for greater restrictions on gun ownership.
And for some reason, police chiefs across the U.S. were not happy with the lifting of the ban, a fact which is balanced somewhat by the NRA's statement on its website which advised U.S. citizens to "urge your member of Congress to publicly oppose renewal of the ban and instead to support legislation that will actually remove violent criminals from America's streets."
One such politician, U.S. Representative Butch Otter (R-Idaho) praised the demise of the federal law: "President Clinton's so-called 'assault weapons' ban was nothing more than a sop to anti-gun liberals. It provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties."
Bang on Butch. Gun ownership is certainly part of a citizen's liberty. I count the freedom to own an AK-47 as inviolate, comparable only to say, freedom of religion.
I can but dream of the day when Canada changes its laws to encourage all its citizens to buy guns, particularly assault weapons. Trouble is, if I were ever permitted to legally buy an AK-47 in Canada, I'd have to register it.
[email protected]
[email protected]