Gun victim's dad wore son's shoes to NRA

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Gun victim's dad wore son's shoes to NRA
20
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 8:29am

Gun victim's dad wore son's shoes to NRA meeting.
A man whose son was killed in the Columbine High School shootings literally walked in his child's shoes to the National Rifle Association convention, where he hoped Vice President Dick Cheney would address the federal assault weapons ban set to expire in September.
Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed with an assault weapon in the Littleton, Colorado, killings five years ago Tuesday, said continuing the ban is common sense.
Assault weapons "are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people," Mauser said before his three-block march to the convention, which runs through Sunday. "It is a weapon of war and we don't want this war on our streets."
Mauser challenged Cheney to speak about extending the ban when the vice president delivered the convention's keynote address Saturday night. More..........

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/04/17/nra.convention.cheney.ap/index.html

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 12:11pm
As I've noted before, I can't imagine what he went through losing a child, but he's not doing his cause any favors espousing factual errors, misconceptions, and overt (and erroneous) generalizations regarding ownership of some of the type of firearms used in the shootings.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 12:13pm

>"Earlier in the day, Tom Mauser, whose son, Daniel, was killed with an assault weapon in the Columbine High School killings five years ago, tried to enter the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, seeking to urge Cheney to support extending the assault weapons ban.


Mauser was turned away by a security guard as several conventioneers applauded. A couple of conventioneers yelled "Get a life" and "Vote for Bush." "<

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 12:56pm
Really tacky (at best) behavior. Sad, but if you attempt to demonize people (and Mr. Mauser has done so) they are going to react in some manner, tacky or otherwise.

As for Kerry's statement, it pretty much illustrates what I've been afraid of all along... he's a rather serious gun control supporter, right down to their nebulous, mean-nothing terminology like "military-style assault weapons". You might have noticed as well that he specified "major police organizations" and NOT "police officers" themselves? That's because most rank-and-file law enforcement officers know what Kerry and other AWB supporters refuse to acknowledge, that the 1994 AWB was a farce from the beginning.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 1:00pm
Was the gun ban in effect when Columbine happened?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 1:15pm
Yes. The shootings at Columbine HS happened on April 20th, 1999. The Assault Weapons Ban was enacted into law in 1994. See how well it worked to prevent such crimes? (Sadly rhetorical question).


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 1:24pm
Alas, you are correct regarding how well it worked...not the next question is why would we want to expand something that didn't work to start with?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 2:05pm
If by "we" you're talking about me and a *bunch* of others, WE don't want it extended. It was pointless and ineffective to begin with, and "we" see little or no point in yet another round of the rhetorical BS presented by the likes of Brady & Co. BUT, because it's a political grandstanding act instead of a practical matter, calculated to make it "appear" that the politician(s) in question are doing something about crime, they're going to try and get it extended.

That the weapons effected by the ban weren't used in a statistically significant number of crimes even before the ban is irrelevent to them. That the number of such weapons in circulation was not reduced by the ban doesn't matter. That functionally identical firearms were and are still legally available is beside the point. Appearance, not substance, is generally what makes not only gun-control arguments, but gun control politicians. Such is the case here.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 11:32pm
I only three thoughts 1) Why was the vice president of the United States speaking at an NRA rally? Votes perhaps? 2) The fact that they yelled vote for Bush speaks volumes about them in the first place and finally what does an average American need with an assualt rifle?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 7:04am
Three answers...

>>>"1) Why was the vice president of the United States speaking at an NRA rally? Votes perhaps?"<<<<

Because he may be a member (I don't know myself), or that he might share some of the same interests or concerns on the subject of firearms and firearms ownership?

>>>"2) The fact that they yelled vote for Bush speaks volumes about them in the first place..."<<<

The fact that Kerry is now coming out as your typical gun control advocate speaks volumes about why they may have mentioned Bush.

>>>"and finally what does an average American need with an assualt rifle?"<<<

Two points to that answer.

First, the 1994 AWB doesn't address assault rifles, but rather so-called "assault weapons". Believe it or not there is a difference. And second, the RKBA isn't "need" based, any more than our right to free speech or any other. It merely exists.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 10:01am

Did you see the NRA are getting their very own media?


Sounds like a real yawner.

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages