USA: "Keep ban on assault weapons"

[cuchulainn]

from the Winfield (Kan.) Courier

http://www.winfieldcourier.com/editorial/e031028.html

EDITORIAL - Keep ban on assault weapons

The National Rifle Association and other advocates of gun rights are pressing Congress to lift the ban on assault weapons when it expires next month.
Nothing could be less timely.

The wave of violence in schools, workplaces and public areas has subsided lately, but this is no reason to relax pressure on those who would attack fellow citizens with rapid-fire assault weapons.

As NRA spokespeople so often say, the need is not for changing the law but for more vigorous enforcement of the laws we have. Law-abiding gun dealers deserve to know that those who illegally procure and distribute assault weapons are being prosecuted.

Gun rights advocates have a friend in the White House, but right now President Bush has his hands full. The last thing he needs as he heads into his reelection campaign is a bloody battle over ending the assault weapons ban.

Since 9/11 many Americans have felt deeply insecure. President Bush himself understood this, and he used that understanding to lead his party to victory in the 2002 elections. That understanding also led him to seek a new department of Homeland Security.

It makes no sense for gun rights advocates to press for relaxation of the ban on assault weapons now or in the foreseeable future. Young Americans are dying daily at the hands of terrorists with access to weapons of war in Iraq and elsewhere.

We should not make such weapons legally available in this country. Rep. Todd Tiahrt and other members of the Kansas delegation in Congress should vote to preserve the ban on assault weapons.

© 2003 by the Winfield Publishing Co

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Two thoughts...

First, I think the writer is living about one year in the future... the ban doesn't expire til next year.

Second, assault weapons, or lack thereof, in the USA has nothing to do with our soldiers getting killed in Iraq.

Conclusion: Author is an idiot.

 

[Jeff White]

Gun rights advocates have a friend in the White House, but right now President Bush has his hands full. The last thing he needs as he heads into his reelection campaign is a bloody battle over ending the assault weapons ban.

So we're supposed to surrender rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution on the altar of political expediancy? So it won't distract the president during an election? I suppose the Winfield Courier will cease publication during the election so it doesn't inadvertantly print something that could distract the president? :banghead:

It makes no sense for gun rights advocates to press for relaxation of the ban on assault weapons now or in the foreseeable future. Young Americans are dying daily at the hands of terrorists with access to weapons of war in Iraq and elsewhere.

Yep, they sure are. And we don't deny those young Americans M4s and M16s to defend themselves with. Why do you want to deny the Americans here at home, where the government pays lip service to the concept of Homeland Security the tools to defend their homes and neighborhoods?

Jeff

 

[vmi93]

Typical...

I wish that people who get paid big bucks for writing for newspapers would take a few minutes to learn about the topics they write about.

The author seems to think that the AWB has some sort of real effect on crime and on the kinds of guns people can buy. Some basic research (reading the law, reviewing a Bushmaster catalog) would dispel this notion.

As far as I can tell the ONLY effect has been to make it impossible to mount a bayonet on some semi-auto rifles and to decrease the weight of some semi-auto pistols.

Of course the author could be worried about the potential rise in bayonettings should the ban expire. After all our nation had a real problem with bayonettings in the years 1775-1781 and 1861-1865.

 

[MuzzleBlast]

Conclusion: Author is an idiot.

Concur. Has anyone told him so?

 

[G-Raptor]

Arguing with an idiot just frustrates you and irritates the idiot. Better to pat him on the back and tell him how smart he is - he'll think he's proved his point and move on.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The National Rifle Association and other advocates of gun rights...

Guns don't have rights. Never did. Never will. They're inanimate objects.

 

[makarov1]

WHAT IDIOTS THE LEFT PRODUCES! IN MOST JURISDICTIONS, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO AQUIRE ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMI-AUTO RIFLES ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!!!! NO AMOUNT OF IMAGINATION WILL MAKE THEM ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!!!!! FULL AUTO/SELECT FIRE WEAPONS ARE MUCH MORE FORMIDABLE IN CLOSE QUARTERS THAN SEMI AUTO WEAPONS. THESE LEFTIES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND SHOULD BE EXPOSED AS HUCKSTERS, PURE AND SIMPLE.

 

[PrudentGT]

Well, you can tell the author's still in 8th grade from the very beginning of the article, when he or she talks about having Congress 'lift' the ban (active) which expires (passive).

As for Bush and his 'predicament,' I voted for him as the lesser of two evils last time, hoping that the pledge to sign the AWB renewal 'if it hits his desk' was a slimy politician's way of avoiding something he hopes will just go away. If it *does* come up for renewal, and he *does* sign it, I'll just have to vote my conscience in '04 and go w/ a third-party candidate.