Asssault weapons

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Asssault weapons
56
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:11pm
How do you feel about the Assault weapons ban being lifted? Do you think that our police are in danger?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:47pm
The assualt weapons ban is NOT keeping those guns out of the hands of those who want them. Police are killed with rifles and shotguns as well as AK-47's.

This is a *feel good* bill that the liberals use to justify their attempt to curb crime. Guns don't kill, criminals who use them lawlessly are the ones to fault.

I am suspicious of ANY government ban on guns and see them as an affront to the second ammendment.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 10:20pm
Since the ban was useless to begin with, it's expiration won't make any real difference in regards to crime or anything else. It was a symbolic gesture as even it's supporters admitted back in 1994.

And no, it's expiration won't present any increase danger to law enforcement personnel. Functionally identical firearms have been available ever since the ban was enacted, so nothing on a practical difference will change there either.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-17-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 10:28pm
Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't know when well regulated Militia became any citizen could carry an assault rifle.

My brother is a police officer and votes soley on this issue (pro gun control).

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 11:13pm
Read the amendment closely... it's not the militia which enjoys the RKBA, it's "the people".

Additionally, there's a significant difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon". Assault rifles are fully automatic or selective fire, and are not addressed by the 1994 AWB. Assault weapons are semi-auto only.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 09-10-2004 - 6:53am
Here's a pretty good link which illustrates the inherent silliness of the ban in the first place. It's been posted before, but with the end or renewal of the ban being imminent it's worth another look for those still uncertain of what's really involved.

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Fri, 09-10-2004 - 7:04am
" a poll released this week by the National Annenberg Election Survey found that 68% of Americans support renewing the ban. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Popularity can't extend '94 assault weapon ban

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Republicans who lead Congress plan to let the federal law that bans the manufacture and sale of 19 semiautomatic assault weapons die quietly Monday, without renewing the statute that is a symbol of the gun-control movement's success during the Clinton era.

The law most certainly will die, but it won't go quietly. A frenzied version of the emotional debate that occurred before the ban became law in 1994 is playing out here.

Supporters of the ban — including police chiefs from across the nation and relatives of gun-crime victims — are here to twist lawmakers' arms, if congressional leaders won't. Gun-control groups have taken out full-page newspaper ads that offer dire predictions of increases in violent crime once weapons that can fire several bullets a second are available for sale again. Today, a new ad will feature Osama bin Laden with an assault rifle, under the headline "Terrorists of 9-11 can hardly wait for 9-13."

On the other side of the debate, gun rights groups' Web sites are scoffing at the notion that the ban will drive up crime. The sites use clocks to count down the hours until the law dies at midnight Monday. Gun manufacturers are preparing to take orders on weapons that will become legal again.

The law's demise is playing out against a curious backdrop: Several polls have indicated that there is broad public support for the ban, and both President Bush and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry say they support it.

So why is the law being allowed to die?

Because the politics of gun control have changed: Crime rates have been down for years, which has lowered the issue on the national agenda. The war in Iraq, fears about terrorism and other issues are getting more attention this election season.

And Democrats — many convinced that the ban's passage cost them at least 20 seats in Congress in the 1994 elections and that Al Gore's support for gun-control measures cost him the presidency in 2000 — largely have backed away from pushing gun control.

Crime concerns fueled ban

Jim Kessler of Americans For Gun Safety, which supports gun control, says complacency has replaced the sense of urgency that led to the ban. The law passed Congress as homicide rates jumped in major cities. Many Americans were alarmed by shootings at schools and workplaces.

"There really was a sense that crime was out of control and going to remain out of control," Kessler says. "But now we've had plummeting crime for the last 10 years."

The Democratic Party's approach to gun control has shifted because of the perception among party strategists that the issue is radioactive with many voters. Four years ago, Gore pushed for a national system to register gun owners. Party officials believe that was a key factor when he lost West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee, three states where hunting is popular. The election would have swung to Gore if he had won any of those states.

This year, Kerry has redefined the issue for his party. Although he supports renewing the ban, he has cast himself as a champion of gun owners' rights. On the campaign trail, he plays up his background as an outdoorsman and has posed for photographs dressed in hunting gear and holding a 12-gauge shotgun.

When it met in Boston, the Democratic National Convention, for the first time, added language to its platform supporting the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Republican congressional leaders' steadfast refusal to allow a vote on the ban has given Bush some political wiggle room: He can tout his support for extending the ban, knowing that his party members in Congress won't allow it to happen.

Meanwhile, a poll released this week by the National Annenberg Election Survey found that 68% of Americans support renewing the ban.

"How did we get in this Alice-in-Wonderland situation of repealing a law that everyone agrees has been so successful?" asks Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Just how successful the ban has been is a key point of debate between gun-control advocates and groups such as the National Rifle Association.

Assault weapons make up only about 1% of the 200 million guns that federal officials estimate are in circulation in the USA. In a Justice Department survey of state and federal inmates in 1997, less than 2% said they had used assault weapons during their crimes. The NRA has long cited the survey in arguing that banning assault weapons would have little effect on crime.

But gun-control groups cite the same study in noting that only 20% of criminals use guns in the first place. And among gun crimes, they say, the percentage involving assault weapons is disproportionately high. They also say that since the ban, federal data that traces guns used in crimes show a two-thirds drop in the use of assault weapons.

Police officials, siding with gun-control groups, say semiautomatic weapons were favored by gangs that terrorized cities during the late 1980s and early 1990s. They now fear a resurgence of such violence.

Loopholes in the law

The law bans 19 semiautomatic weapons and limits the size of clips to 10 rounds. But critics who say it should not be revived say it has loopholes that have limited its impact.

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, says the law bans only "cosmetic accessories" on semiautomatic weapons while allowing similar weapons with just as much firepower to stay on the market. "All we are talking about if the ban expires is that once again manufacturers will be able to put more than two cosmetic features on a gun."

Gun makers made small changes in certain weapons that allowed "knockoffs" of the banned weapons to be sold legally. The Bushmaster rifle used in the sniping attacks that killed 10 people in the Washington area in 2002 was a legal weapon, very similar to the banned AR-15 rifle.

Some supporters of the law also were critical of the loopholes and were divided over whether the ban should be beefed up or simply renewed.

Kessler said the split helped doom the ban. "It was devastating. It made it impossible to have any grass-roots support for renewal of the ban."

Among the crime victims' relatives who came here this week to push for extending the ban was Bryl Phillips-Taylor, whose son Scott was killed with an assault weapon in Virginia in 1989. She held up his picture at a news conference and recalled coming here in 1994 to lobby for the ban.

"Now I'm here again," she said. "I don't understand it."



http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-09-assaultwaepons-law_x.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Fri, 09-10-2004 - 7:41am
<>

That's because you don't know what a militia was when the amendment was written. The town militia in the 1800s was basically all the men in the town. The militia's primary function was to protect the area - back then during times of frequent Indian raids, conflicts with soldiers from other countries, etc., most people couldn't afford to wait for the army to take days, weeks, or months to show up to protect them, so they had to protect themselves. And no, the National Guard is NOT the modern-day equivalent of the militia.

Besides, what's wrong with law-abiding citizens carrying assault weapons? The ban only affects people who follow the law anyway - hence the reason it has been absolutely useless.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 09-10-2004 - 7:53am
And how many of those polled knew what an "assault weapon" is? Knew the difference between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle"? Lets see if there's any clues to those questions in the article you posted.

Yep, here are the indicators I was talking about...

>>>Gun-control groups have taken out full-page newspaper ads that offer dire predictions of increases in violent crime once weapons that can fire several bullets a second are available for sale again.<<<

It seems those gun-control groups aren't willing to publicly acknowledge that functionally identical firearms (capable of firing several bullets per second) are still available, have been ever since the ban was enacted in 1994. Nothing there would change should the ban expire unrenewed.

>>>Today, a new ad will feature Osama bin Laden with an assault rifle, under the headline "Terrorists of 9-11 can hardly wait for 9-13."<<<

Ah yes, more proof. The AWB deals with semi-auto "assault weapons", not fully-automatic "assault rifles". Now, does that statement from USAToday indicate ignorance of that fact, or the deliberate intent to mislead it's readers on the subject?

Another fallacy here...

>>>Jim Kessler of Americans For Gun Safety, which supports gun control, says complacency has replaced the sense of urgency that led to the ban. The law passed Congress as homicide rates jumped in major cities. Many Americans were alarmed by shootings at schools and workplaces.<<<

The AWB was never about crime. In spite of AG Reno claiming during debate over the 1994 ban that such firearms were the firearms of choice for criminals, out of the top ten firearms actually used in the commission of crimes, only 1 (that's one, singular) firearm was adddressed in the ban itself. These firearms have never been particularly common in crimes, constituting something along the lines of 1% or 2% of all firearms so used. That hardly constitutes a significant problem.

>>>Meanwhile, a poll released this week by the National Annenberg Election Survey found that 68% of Americans support renewing the ban.<<<

Which says nothing about their knowledge level on the issue. If the article you posted for us is any indicator, most of them don't have a clue, and that's largely the fault of misleading, misrepresentative articles like that one.

Did you by any chance bother to look through the link I provided? Learn anything, like why the AWB was and is an exercise in political expediency rather than accomplishing anything of substance?

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Fri, 09-10-2004 - 9:28am
I posted a link to an item that reported public opinion is not behind this.

Interpret that whichever way you wish.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 09-10-2004 - 12:00pm
Here's the personal opinion of Tom Diaz, senior analyst for the Violence Policy Center, on the subject of the Assault Weapons Ban. Keep in mind that he's a fervent gun control advocate.

""If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets.""

When even gun control advocates claim that the ban is worthless...

~mark~

Pages