Another broken Bush promise

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Another broken Bush promise
54
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 8:26am
Who Needs Assault Weapons?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, NYT



ERIDIAN, Idaho — If you've been longing for your very own assault rifle and 30-round magazine for the next holiday season, you're in luck.

President Bush, sidestepping a promise, is allowing the ban on assault rifles and oversized clips to expire on Sept. 14. So at a gun store here in Meridian, a bit west of Boise, the counter has a display promising "2 FREE HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES."

All you have to do is purchase a new Beretta 9-millimeter handgun and you'll receive two high-capacity magazines - on the condition, the fine print states, that the federal ban expires on schedule.

President Bush promised in the last presidential campaign to support an extension of the ban, which was put in place in 1994 for 10 years. "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Mr. Bush observed at the time.

These days Mr. Bush still says that he'll sign an extension of the ban if it happens to reach his desk. But he knows that the only way the ban can be extended on time is if he actually urges its passage, and he refuses to do that. So his promise to support an extension rings hollow - it's not exactly a lie, but it's not the full truth, either.

Mr. Bush's flip-flop is surprising because he has generally had the courage of his convictions. Apparently he's hiding from this issue because it's so politically charged.

Critics of the assault weapon ban have one valid point: the ban has more holes than Swiss cheese.

"The big frustration of my customers is that removed things that were kind of fun and made it look cool, but didn't affect how the gun operated," said Sean Wontor, a salesman who heaved two rifles onto the counter of Sportsman's Warehouse here in Meridian to make his point.

One was an assault weapon that was produced before the ban (and thus still legal), and the other was a sanitized version produced afterward to comply with the ban by removing the bayonet mount and the flash suppressor.

After these cosmetic changes, the rifle is now no longer considered an assault weapon, yet, of course, it is just as lethal.

Still, assault weapons, while amounting to only 1 percent of America's 190 million privately owned guns, account for a hugely disproportionate share of gun violence precisely because of their macho appeal.

Assault weapons aren't necessary for any kind of hunting or target shooting, but they're popular because they can transform a suburban Walter Mitty into Rambo, for a lot less money than a Hummer.

"I've got a ton of customers shooting squirrels with AK-47's," said Kevin Tester, a gun salesman near Boise. "They're using 30-round magazines and 7.62-millimeter ammunition, they're shooting up the hills, and they're having a blast."

I grew up on an Oregon farm that bristled with guns to deal with the coyotes that dined on our sheep. Having fired everything from a pistol to a machine gun, I can testify that shooting can be a lot of fun. But consider the cost: 29,000 gun deaths in America each year.

While gun statistics are as malleable as Play-Doh, they do underscore that assault weapons are a special problem in America.

They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers. If anything, we should be plugging the holes in the ban by having it cover copycat weapons without bayonet mounts, instead of moving backward and allowing a new flood of weapons and high-capacity magazines.

The bottom line is that Mr. Bush's waffling on assault weapons will mean more dead Americans.

About 100 times as many Americans are already dying from gunfire in the U.S. as in Iraq. As many Americans die from firearms every six weeks as died in the 9/11 attacks - yet the White House is paralyzed on this issue.

Mr. Bush needs to live up to his campaign promise and push to keep the ban on assault weapons. Otherwise, we'll bring more of the Iraq-like carnage to our own shores, and his refusal to confront our gun problem will kill more Americans over time than Osama bin Laden ever could.


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 9:55am
A candidate not keeping his promise after elected? SHOCKING! lol Seriously, Bush is trying to keep his base happy. They are his only chance at having another 4 years in the White House. He was also playing to his base when he announced he wanted an amendment banning gay marriage added to the constitution. Most candidates play to their base to a certain extent. However, John Kerry likes to play down the middle! LOL LOL I laugh sometimes when I hear him carefully wording something so that he will not offend the other side. For instance his stand on Iraq. One would think Kerry would just say that if he knew then what he knows today he would NOT vote to give Bush the authorization to go to Iraq. If he was playing to his base that is exactly what he would say. However, instead he focuses on the fact that he gave him the authorization to go to war after he exahausted every avenue and gathered a strong alliance. He says his vote was contingent on that. Anyway, Kerry is smart enough to realize that he has his base solidly behind him. It is the independents that he is trying to reach out to. He wants the independents to know that he would not hesitate to go to war if it was needed. He knows that his base understands exactly what he is doing. That is why we see him campaigning in places that were considered Bush turf. Whereas Bush is concentrating mainly on the areas where he is strong at rather than areas where he could take votes for Kerry. Bush is worried about his base for some reason. Maybe internal polling or something. Perhaps this will change after the RNC though. Maybe it is his plan to strengthen the base first and then go after the other votes. Kerry was able to essentially skip the first step because DEMS were already fired up and united. I just noticed that I got totally off topic. Oh well.....
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 11:18am
The President doesn't create bills, or pass them through the houses of Congress. If no bill comes for him to sign, there is no broken promise. I do not recall his promising to be pro-active with respect to renewing the legislation.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 12:31pm
He promised, he should keep his promise. Do you want these weapons available??? Why wouldn't you hold Bush to his promise? I hold my hubby & my kids to their word. Why not the pres?


"President Bush promised in the last presidential campaign to support an extension of the ban, which was put in place in 1994 for 10 years. "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Mr. Bush observed at the time."

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:05pm
"trying to keep his base happy". Are you saying his base are the people buying assault rifles?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:30pm
I can let you in on a little secret.

The assault weapons ban had absolutely no effect on the violent crime rates in this country, as the people that use them to commit violent crimes do not go through the legal process to obtain them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2001
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:49pm
Personally, I've always been a little perplexed as to what people who DO buy assault weapons legally use them for, if not for their intended purpose (i.e., to assault someone).

Bev

girl in chair
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:57pm
I'm saying that the NRA is a part of his base. I don't believe that the NRA supports a ban on assault rifles. They have not endorsed him yet this year. Kerry is trying to go after them by saying he has been a hunter all his life and all of that. So, I'm just assuming that if Bush does not do what they want him to do they could either vote for Kerry or not vote at all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:01pm
Kerry has about as much of a chance of winning the endorsement of the NRA as I do of becoming Pope.

If you read any of the NRA publications, they rank Kerry up there with Hillary Clinton, and Diane Feinstein as far as the gun control left are concerned, so dont hold your breath for any endorsement from the NRA for Kerry.

The only member of the NRA that might endorse Kerry is Michael Moore (and that is if he is still a member)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:02pm
I dont own one, but have shot one at an outdoor range, and while it was quite fun for the time I was there, I don't see the need to own one.

This is just me personally though.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:09pm
nuclear weapons sales bans has absolutely no effect on terrorism rate in the world, as the people that would use them do not go through the legal process to obtain them.

So let's not do anything about it????

Pages