BRING ON THE GUNS!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
BRING ON THE GUNS!
13
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 6:42am
Bringing On the Guns

Sunday, September 12, 2004; Page B06



PRESIDENT BUSH doesn't care, and neither do the Republican House and Senate leaders. They're content to open up the streets to the pointless and exceptionally deadly gunfire of assault-style weapons. Their cold political calculation: Let the assault weapons ban expire Monday night, and let the police in particular and everybody in general fend for their lives. After all, that's the way people like it -- or so claims Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) who, unlike other doctors who have treated shooting victims, thinks this is what the people want. "I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Mr. Frist told reporters last week.


That's dead wrong. As Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) responded, "The 'will of the American people' has been carefully evaluated by poll after poll that show two-thirds to three-fourths of the people support the ban." The most recent national poll, conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, found that 68 percent of Americans wanted to extend the ban, including 57 percent of those with a gun in their household. A Frist aide said the majority leader was referring to a lack of pressure from within the Senate. Ms. Feinstein noted that she had written Mr. Frist asking him to schedule a vote on the issue.


In the House, Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) calls the assault weapon ban "a feel-good piece of legislation" that does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. He's partly right; it's a feel-better ban for police on the front lines and citizens who would be far better protected if the ban were extended to cover the knockoff models that the gun industry has been peddling to circumvent the law.


What's the point of flooding the country with weapons that are modeled for killing people, not the hunters' prey? Why bring back bayonets, flash suppressors and multi-round magazines designed for quick and heavy gunfire that can help mow down a crowd in the streets or kids in a school? Why ignore the pleadings of D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, who stood together with more than 70 other police executives Wednesday in support of extending the ban? At least 2,000 sheriffs, police chiefs, law enforcement groups and prosecutors from around the country have asked Mr. Bush to help keep these weapons off the market. Joseph M. Polisar, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, noted that the White House ignored the chiefs' request for a meeting and said Republican leaders in Congress rejected their request for an immediate vote.


Whose "will" do these leaders respect? Most Americans have a will to live without these especially lethal and absolutely unnecessary weapons in their midst. Again, why won't the president act?

Donna
Donna

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 6:44am

OOPs!

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 2:03pm
Yet another misleading article about the Assault Weapons Ban. Example?

>>>"Why bring back bayonets, flash suppressors and multi-round magazines designed for quick and heavy gunfire that can help mow down a crowd in the streets or kids in a school?"<<<

Now, does the writer of that article not know, or do they not want YOU to know that firearms with those precise components are legally available now, and have been ever since the ban was enacted? Firearms can have two of those features (bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol-grips, etc) and still be perfectly legal to import, manufacture, purchase and possess. That's the way the ban was originally written, and the way it will still be written even if it is renewed.

Furthermore, even without something like a bayonet lug (and just how many affixed bayonetings has ANYONE ever read or heard about outside of WWII, Vietnam, etc.) there is absolutely no functional difference between legally manufactured firearms and banned firearms of the same type... they are functionally identical. So nothing would change there either whether the ban is renewed or allowed to expire.

The entire issue is a smokescreen, designed and intended to mislead the public about what "assault weapons" are, and what the Assault Weapons Ban" actually addressed and accomplished.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 2:10pm
>> The entire issue is a smokescreen, designed and intended to mislead the public about what "assault weapons" are, and what the Assault Weapons Ban" actually addressed and accomplished. <<

What legimate uses do semi-automatic assault rifles have outside of military or law enforcement applications?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 2:40pm
Why should a news report about the gun ban be factual?

Dont you remember the "special report" that Diane Feinstein did on assault weapons that was totally debunked?

Avatar for isabella710
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 2:41pm
<<>>

Darn good protection of your home.


Photobucket



iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 3:07pm
Assault Rifles are fully-automatic, only some semi-auto's are "assault weapons".

As for the uses for them beyond military or law enforcement, there's recreational and competitive target shooting (as in the Camp Perry National competition each year), hunting of game appropriate to the cartridge used (the .223/5.56mm in the AR-15 class is a good varminting round, .308/7.62 is great for deer hunting in the SKS-type rifles), and collecting for pleasure or investment.

They are (by and large) great firearms with a number of legal, legitimate uses. That fact is simply too inconvenient for gun control advocates (to include the media) to allow to be public admitted.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 3:09pm
Oh, I've long since given up hope for any objective honesty from them. That's one reason I'm here, doing what I'm doing. But yes, I remember that "report". I also remember CNN getting busted for fabricating that special report they did on "assault weapons" a while back.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 9:36am
In response to the innumerable articles in various media reports concerning the flood of AK-47's and Uzi's soon to hit our streets, it needs to be noted that both the AK-47 and Uzi (along with various Beretta's, FN's, Steyr's, etc) were banned from import in July of 1989 by Bush Sr., and that that ban is *permanent* until formally repealed... it doesn't have a sunset clause as the 1994 AWB did.

The media is once again feeding on fear and hype and using two of the arguably most recognizable firearms names available to them. Besides, what's a little thing like honesty got to do with anything? :~(

Whenever anyone reads articles predicting doom and gloom because those two firearms are once again available, keep the 1989 ban in mind. What the media isn't saying on this subject is as important or more so than what it is saying.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:13am
I loved the embarassing moment that Feinstein had when she had to face questions on why she put forth a false report to back up her claims. She had no comment.....Ooops
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-13-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 11:09am
My understanding of the ban is that it wasn't necessarily against most weapons, but rather against the use of larger magazines, and alterations that made the guns automatic fire, returning to the days of Al Capone. Am I wrong? If so, please fill me in.

If I am right...then I have to say no one needs a magazine larger than a half dozen bullets or so...good for target practice or hunting, but allows enough time for someone to be overpowered while reloading if they are using a weapon to kill or maim others.

But then, with automatic reloads available, it doesn't take long to replenish your ammo anyway. Fact is...Guns don't kill people...People kill people.

By the way...I am not anti-gun. I firmly believe in self-protection, am armed, and know when and how to use it. I just don't think we need to go back to the days of the Gatlin gun yet.

Oh, and by the way...I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I do believe, however, that party politics are gonna be the death of this nation yet.

Pages