Congress should strengthen, renew assault weapons ban

[MrBenchley]

Great piece in the Chicago Sun-Times"

"Is there a reasonable American who can look back over the past 10 years and conclude: What this country really needed was more assault weapons? The decade-old ban, set to expire next year, had limited effect, true, because it contained enough loopholes to drive a tank through. Make-your-own kits could be sold. Hybrids skirted the law. And of course pre-1994 assault weapons were A-OK.
"A limited effect on total gun murders'' actually sounds pretty good to us; it means it cut down the number of killings, though not all. Not perfect, but a start.
And what is the downside of the ban? That people who feel more secure with an arsenal of Uzis, AK-47s, Tec-9s and MACs might have a difficult time getting new ones? That die-hard NRA members who feel that any control of weapons whatsoever is a mere prelude to black helicopters from the United Nations swooping down and spiking their precious bodily fluids with fluoride will fret? Public policy can't be dictated by such people.
The current assault weapons ban ends Sept. 13, 2004, so it is natural that the matter will become mired in electoral politics. But this is a bipartisan issue, or should be. Law enforcement groups, medical groups, religious groups, women's groups -- all manner of Americans from across society -- support reining in these weapons. The Second Amendment is not a license to arm oneself in any fashion imaginable. All sorts of weapons -- machineguns, hand grenades, rocket launchers -- are against the law for civilians to own. Congress owes it to the American people to extend and strengthen the assault weapons ban. There is really no rational argument against doing so."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits03.html

[Withergyld]

1. It should be allowed to expire

It violates the 2nd.

[demsrule4life]

3. I thought it only banned a combination of flash suppressors

bayonet lugs and pistol grips, sure in the hell did'nt ban any rifles.

[Withergyld]

4. It bans weapons with features that would make them useful to the military

Scotus found in US v. Miller that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd because it was not useful to the military.
Since only weapons useful to the military are protected by the 2nd the premise of the AWB violates the 2nd.
What would be more useful to the military, a Pre-ban with bayonet lug, flashider etc. or a postban sporter without the "evil features"?

[Withergyld]

7. The proposed bill to renew and strengthen the AWB further violates the 2nd

Because the following weapons are prohibited based on their use BY the military:
"(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting pur
poses, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use 20
in a sporting event."

U.S v. Miller cites a MILTARY purpose, not a SPORTING purpose as being the basis as to whether or not a specific weapon is protected bt the 2nd.

[Liberal Classic]

2. Let it expire for no other reason than

Having Congress give up one little iota of authority they take.

[slackmaster]

5. Thanks for posting - They lost me on the fourth word

"Reasonableness" rears its ugly head again. How often have we seen people who are short on hard data fall back on the comforting self-deception of reasonsableness? The convenient cop-out that automatically brands anyone who has a different opinion as less than reasonable.

I guess I'll have to live with not being regarded as a "reasonable" person by the Chicago Sun-Times or MrBenchley. I haven't lost any sleep over it yet and don't expect to any time soon.

"...Congress owes it to the American people to extend and strengthen the assault weapons ban. There is really no rational argument against doing so."

That's the Sun-Times' editorial opinion. In my opinion there is no rational reason FOR doing so. The Sun-Times surely hasn't presented any reason that rises to the level of a sound basis for public policy.

I do respect the Sun-Times' right to have a nonsensical, emotionally-driven, factually baseless opinion as well as their right to publish an editorial rife with self-contradiction and misinformation. I respect MrBenchley's right to ignore the mutually exclusive claims made by groups like the Brady Center and the Violence Policy Center on this issue. I respect everyone's right to have and to express strong emotions, and their right to be willfully ignorant about the topic.

I am not swayed one iota by this piece of flawed, yellow journalism.

[MrBenchley]

6. Police Chiefs Back Assault Weapon Ban Extension

"PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Police chiefs from major U.S. cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta and Philadelphia urged Congress on Wednesday to renew the federal ban on assault weapons, which is set to expire next year.
Standing behind a table laden with semi-automatic rifles and other firearms seized from the streets of Philadelphia, the law enforcement leaders told a news conference that failure to extend the ban would cause a new surge in multiple killings and subject police officers to a greater risk of armed attacks.
"The idea that 10 years later we are even debating this is insanity," Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton said.
As an illustration of the destructive firepower of assault weapons, which incorporate military features, the police chiefs cited a 1993 attack in California where they said a man with an assault weapon killed eight people and wounded six others in 11 minutes."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031022/us_nm/crime_guns_dc_1

[Valarauko]

8. What about

all the other police chiefs?

[a2birdcage]

23. Mine doesn't

[CO Liberal]

24. Perhaps He Will.....

...after one of his men gets shot with an assault weapon.

[Lefty48197]

9. I don't know Mr. Benchley....

Remember, all those NRA members are telling us that the only reason they don't vote for Democrats is because of things like our support for assault weapons bans and the like.
Doesn't it follow logically that those people will vote for the Democratic candidate IF that candidate wants to let the ban die?
Well, unless of course, they're lying about ever even CONSIDERING voting for a Democrat, that is.

[Superfly]

10. You know...

getting votes is important and all, but I'd like to think of the Democratic party as one that goes beyond that. I would like to think that the reason that the Democratic party would let the AWB sunset is because it is unjust and superfulous. I would like to think that the reason Democrats, liberals, and progressives would let the AWB ban sunset is that they believe that Americans should not be denied the right to keep and bear arms.

B

[slackmaster]

11. I agree with Superfly on this

The AWB is indeed unjust and superfluous, and that is why I am in favor of letting it die a natural death. I believe all laws that are supposed to enhance public safety in exchange for reduced liberty should be held accountable, and if they do not provide the benefits on which they were "sold" they should be repealed. A sunset clause like the present AWB is one way to make that happen.

To me the issue has little to do with the right to keep and bear arms. What we all sacrificed for the AWB was a piece of the right to obtain and own things. To me the right to restrict what others can possess, within reason, properly ends at the threshold of a person's home. That "within reason" is really where individuals diverge. There are as many versions of reasonableness as there are sane people. If you don't want guns or any other kind of thing in your home you have a right to forbid them, but that right does not extend into my home.

Anyone who wants to say the ban wasn't effective because it didn't go far enough is free to propose something they think would be better. I've always thought of individual liberty as one of the cornerstones of Democracy and traditional liberalism. That includes the freedom to say, do, and own things that other people don't like as long as you don't infringe on their life or liberty.

[Wcross]

71. Well said Superfly

What is so "liberal" about denying rights to honest citizens?

[RoeBear]

12. What NRA members are you...

...referring to Lefty? I'm not aware of any down here in the dungeon, if that is what you are trying to insinuate.

[MrBenchley]

14. Jeepers

Is that why every post that criticizes the racist right wing turds at the NRA sprouts all these angry screams of rage? Because there are no members down here?

[juancarlos]

87. Jeepers

Is that why every post that criticizes the gun-grabbing turds at the VPC sprouts all these angry stutterings of rage?

[MrBenchley]

13. An NRA member lie?

What are the odds of that? (Near certain)

[RoeBear]

16. I'm willing to take people at...

...their word. For example if you told me you were an educated and reasonable person, I would be willing to believe you. :)

[MrBenchley]

18. I'm not quite that gullible

The closer you look at the RKBA arguments, the phonier they get.

[juancarlos]

88. I'm not quite that gullible

The close you look at the gun-grabber arguments, the phonier they get.

That sounds more correct to me

[MrBenchley]

15. DURST: Weapons Of Individual Destruction

"Of course, if Hans Blix and the boys ever wandered over to the US of A to seek weapons of individual destruction, they'd best be advised to wait till September 13th of next year, when it'll be like picking blueberries out of rock salt. That's the date our national assault weapons ban expires and it looks like, even though the President campaigned on extending the ban, he's running away from his pledge so fast you can see skid marks.
Not that the ban worked all that well. Gun manufacturers immediately figured out how to skirt the ban making minor design modifications to their bullet hoses. You know, changing trigger guard positions, adding racing stripes, applying Pokemon decals. But the NRA still strenuously opposes the reinstitution of the ban. Its like disco; same beat ten years later: "Assault weapons can be used as legitimate hunting rifles."
You know what, I can buy that argument. I mean, you can also use a chainsaw to cut butter. Just going to get a little messy around muffin time is all I'm saying. And, if you think about it, a hand grenade will signal the end of recess. They got a point. Guns don't kill people, its those darn bullets that create the holes that the blood leaks out of way too quick.
The problem here, though, is according to a recent poll, 73 percent of the American people favor restrictions on assault weapons. But because this sunset law will kill the ban automatically, Bush can say he's in favor of it, and still encourage his buddies in the house to kill it, so he doesn't get his hands dirty. George W. Bush may not be the first Stealth President, but he is turning out to be the best. "

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15994

[Stilgar]

53. I am glad you posted this article saying the AWB did nothing.

Go from the pres lied about Iraq to guns to the renewal of the AWB and then say it did nothing. I just waisted 2 minutes of my time for an article that went no where and said nothing other than Bush is good at getting away with stuff.

[MrBenchley]

17. AJC: "Assault weapons belong off the street, under a ban "

"Adolf Hitler was so delighted with the lethal capability of the new gun presented to him by his ordnance designers during World War II that he dubbed it the "Sterm Kever" -- or assault rifle.
To justify assault rifles in home arsenals, the gun industry has created sporting competitions around them and spun the myth that the high-powered weapons are the best guarantee of personal safety. But there is no reason for the average citizen to own a firearm invented to give poor marksmen in the German army a better chance of hitting their targets. If assault rifles provide the ultimate in personal protection, the streets of Baghdad would be the safest in the world rather than the most dangerous.
Despite the deadly threat to police officers and civilians alike from assault rifles, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) wants to let the ban lapse and permit these killing machines to flood our streets. DeLay says he won't let the extension come up for a vote. And President Bush, who claims to favor the ban, isn't pushing Congress for an extension.
The National Rifle Association wants the assault ban lifted. In its paranoid view, the banning of Uzis one day means your Colt will be confiscated tomorrow. The NRA leadership insists the right to own a gun accorded Americans in the Second Amendment extends to any and all guns, even those that fire off 30 rounds in less than two seconds and murder innocent children."

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0503/21guns.html

[Superfly]

19. We've seen this piece of shit before

the first clue that it is pure and abject garbage is the fact the author spent absolutely zero time finding the proper way to spell "Sturmgewehr".

[MrBenchley]

20. Gee, fly

So few people actually CARE about Nazi trivia to that extent....

[Superfly]

21. Actually, it's the German Language

not Nazi trivia.

[Romulus]

25. don't forget

they're talking about FULL AUTO weapons in the article . . .

NOT the Mini-14 "assault weapon."

[slackmaster]

30. The AWB has NOTHING to do with automatic firearms

The AJC piece reflects near total ignorance of the subject on the part of the writer.

[Stilgar]

52. oh boy, someone got thier opinion printed in the newspaper

Lets all do as he says, the paper printed his opinion, it must be true.

[MrBenchley]

22. Milwaukee District Attorney Calls for Strengthened Assault Weapons Ban

"In a counterpoint to National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre's author visit to Milwaukee, District Attorney E. Michael McCann and others today (Wednesday) announced support for renewal and strengthening of the federal ban on assault weapons.
"Congress must act to make permanent the national ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and they must significantly strengthen current law," said McCann. "Despite what the NRA leadership might say, these military style guns were not designed for sporting purposes.
"The gun industry has cynically skirted the intent of the law and continues to make assault weapons for civilian sale," said McCann. "Far too often, we see assault guns on our streets and used to kill police officers at an alarming rate. Assault guns are favorites of cop-killers, drug dealers, militias and gangs, and there should be no place for them in the neighborhoods of civilian society".
Fr. Thomas Mueller, Chairperson of the Milwaukee Inner City Congregations Allied for Hope (MICAH) Education Committee, said, "The existing ban cries out for strengthening. Most of the assault weapons banned in 1994 are back on the market in slightly modified form, which is perfectly legal under existing law."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,564460,00.html

[Stilgar]

43. and here is a member of anti-gun group that wants to renew AWB

Well no crap. A press release from a antigun group saying we need to renew the AWB is not even news.

[Spoonman]

26. It should be discarded

and allowed to sunset along with every other usless law on the books.
It did nothing to prevent or stop crime, and restricts the rights of individuals.
Restiction of rights is a direct conflict with the most basic principles of the Democratic Party mentality.

Let it sunset!!!!!!

[MrBenchley]

27. From conservative Montana

"There's simply no compelling reason to open the door to more of these weapons.
Known by many as "cop-killers" because so many were used in gang-related crimes against police, assault weapons can fire up to six bullets a minute. Most were designed for military use -- not for hunting or sporting purposes.
They comprised only 1 percent of the of the guns privately owned, yet accounted for more than 8 percent of guns traced to crimes in a four-year span before the ban.
Montana's congressional members should work with their colleagues to extend this responsible ban. "

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/news/stories/20030515/opinion/302971.html

[Romulus]

28. I'm sure the police in Montana

will appreciate being fired upon at a rate of six rounds a minute by a Mini-30 instead of an SKS. Thank goodness! :eyes:

[slackmaster]

32. Expiration of the ban will not result in MORE of them

It will only allow cosmetic changes to be made to new firearms.

The number and capabilities of firearms sold will not change in the slightest.

[MrBenchley]

29. From the Baltimore Sun

"Those in either party who defend these weapons of evil, either with their outright support or by omission, should be ashamed of themselves. Make no mistake, these semiautomatic assault weapons were designed to slaughter human beings. They are the weapon of choice of drug cartels, gangs and even terrorists, and for the good of our nation they must be eliminated from the streets.

I find it disturbing that some in the GOP - the party of law and order - would not want to renew the ban on a class of weapons that every major law enforcement organization in our nation wants banned. Do the voices of those brave enough to wear the badge no longer carry weight in the halls of Congress?

The ultimate irony in all of this is that in Washington, members of Congress and their staffs were recently terrorized by the unknown and unseen D.C. sniper, who was calmly killing and maiming innocent men, women and children. If the horrific memory of those days does not make a decision clear on renewing the ban on assault weapons, then sadly nothing will.

As a civilized nation, we must not only renew the ban on these weapons but in fact strengthen it. To knowingly do otherwise would be to knowingly condemn the innocent to death. "

http://www.underassault.org/content/press/press_na_bs_9803.html

[Spoonman]

41. Douglas MacKinnon

"As a Republican"
Straight from the authors mouth

Douglas MacKinnon, press secretary to former Sen. Bob Dole.

Pimping for yet another Republican.
What else is next from the anti crowd.

[Stilgar]

42. Someone else that needs to learn before speaking

"They are the weapon of choice of drug cartels, gangs and even terrorists, and for the good of our nation they must be eliminated from the streets. "

No, those would be
cartels = fullauto rifles and handguns
gangs = handguns
terrorists = bombs, knifes, guns, and anything they can get there hands on.

"The ultimate irony in all of this is that in Washington, members of Congress and their staffs were recently terrorized by the unknown and unseen D.C. sniper, who was calmly killing and maiming innocent men, women and children. If the horrific memory of those days does not make a decision clear on renewing the ban on assault weapons, then sadly nothing will. "

The weapon used in the sniper attacks was not banned, renewing it would not have changed the outcome. But thanks for trying to use a horrible event to further your goals.

[MrBenchley]

31. From San Antonio:

"There's a certain irony about the decision by allied authorities to begin disarming Iraqi civilians and the push by U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to better equip American civilians with heavy weaponry.
Allied officials are trying to put in place a proclamation that would make it illegal for Iraqis to walk around town toting machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47s and other military-type weapons that make people on the streets of Baghdad just a bit jumpy.
In this country, House Majority Leader DeLay is reportedly furious that President Bush and other Republican leaders are considering an extension of the 1994 ban on some semiautomatic weapons. Without a vote to extend it, the ban expires next year.
It's likely that neither DeLay nor his buddies at the NRA have anything to worry about.
They'll leave the worrying to police officers doing their jobs in dangerous neighborhoods, along with Americans everywhere whose safety is threatened by the massive number of combat-oriented guns in this society."

http://www.underassault.org/content/press/press_na_sa_52003.html

[Stilgar]

39. good one, equate Iraq with full auto military gear

with semi auto military looking gear.

Also dont mention that all the old stuff was grandfathered in except for a few named guns that were slightly redesigned and kept right on selling them. Lets not mention it totally failed to do anything to limit semiauto rifles lethality, just the looks.

[MrBenchley]

33. From the New York Daily News:

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) wants more Uzis and AK-47s on the streets of America. These murder machines were outlawed by the 1994 assault weapons ban, but the law expires next year. And now, thanks to DeLay, legislation to renew it appears dead in the House.
In 1934, Congress began regulating machine guns with the National Firearms Act. In 1986, it prohibited the sale of automatic weapons to civilians. The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibits semi-automatics (which, although "semi," can still empty a 30-round magazine in five seconds), grenade launchers, bayonet mounts and various nonhunting guns. The National Rifle Association portrays the ban as an attack on hunters. What hunter kills deer or ducks with a grenade launcher? Or an AK-47? These weapons are instruments of war. They are meant to kill people.
Since the ban went into effect, military-style weapons have been harder to obtain. Statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms show that in 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2% of guns used in crimes. By the end of 1995, that had fallen to 4.3%. The most recent data available show that by November 1996, the figure was just 3.2%.
The ban is working. Its constitutionality has been upheld in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has even refused to hear challenges to it. Gun advocates should stop twisting the meaning of the Second Amendment. "A well-regulated militia" is defined as "a military force." We have a very good one. Its members are entitled to military weapons. Hunters are entitled to hunting weapons. The NRA should stop confusing the two."

http://www.underassault.org/content/press/press_na_nydn_51903.html

[slackmaster]

34. The Violence Policy Center disagrees with the central claim of this one

underassault.org says:

"Since the ban went into effect, military-style weapons have been harder to obtain."

The VPC says:

"Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their "post-ban" guns to evade the law, a tactic the industry dubbed "sporterization." Of the nine assault weapon brand/types listed by manufacturer in the law,5 six of the brand/types have been re-marketed in new, "sporterized" configurations.6 In fact, gunmakers openly boast of their ability to circumvent the assault weapons ban...."

See http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm for full text.

In this case the VPC is factually correct. The gun makers "evaded" the ban with alacrity and even humor: See http://www.olyarms.com/faq.html and scroll down to "PCR" - Politically Correct Rifle.

Any suggestion that expiration of the AWB will put "more Uzis and AK-47s on the streets of America" is just plain bullshit.

[Stilgar]

37. so clinton signing it into law means he didnt pass it

but not even getting a chance to sign the bill is Bush's fault? Someone explain that to me

[Withergyld]

35. What a pantload!

These articles are the biggest collection of crap I have seen for a while.
:puke: :puke: :puke:

[slackmaster]

38. It's the Big Lie strategy

I appreciate MrBenchley's dedication in accumulating all of these bullshit editorials and essays in one place. That makes my job of writing scathing letters to the editors of these "news" sources much easier.

[Withergyld]

46. I noticed

that no one has commented on my claim that the AWB is Unconstitutional. I guess this means they are not protesting my claim!

[CO Liberal]

48. If the AWB Were Truly Unconstitutional......

...it would have been ruled unconstitutional. And it wasn't. So it isn't.

End of story.

[Withergyld]

49. ruled unconstitutional by whom??

It has not yet been tested in court.

[CO Liberal]

51. And The Reason For That......

...is probably that no one could find anything unconstitutional about it to file a case.

Just because you disagree with something does not automatically make it unconstitutional. It has to be at odds with the Constitution.

[Stilgar]

54. it means nothing

no case filed does not mean anything. Not that it is, not that it isnt. The prime problem is without going into a true argument about the RKBA no other case can really be tried. You have to have a ruling on wether RKBA is individual right or collective. If individual right then the AWB can be fought a lot easier with much more success of winning. If SCOTUS says its collective, the AWB is not unconstitutional.

[MrBenchley]

70. It's No More Unconstitutional

Than it is mint-flavored.

[Stilgar]

36. another flame thread

again with the pointless thread.
Wow benchley, you can go to an anti-gun website and post all the links to opinions that newspapers have printed.

This matters how? Would you like me to go trough the pro-gun sites and post everyones opinion on how the AWB failed? you probably would just so you can gripe about how all the posts come from pro gun sites and thus is a bunch of crap. I will save you the fun and me the time.

[MrBenchley]

75. Hahahahahahahaha...

"Would you like me to go trough the pro-gun sites and post everyones opinion on how the AWB failed?"
Let me do it for you....

"Stormfront White Nationalist Community > News > Newslinks > Biggest Gun Ban ever introduced in history

All told, it's a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton gun ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS 60 Minutes "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." There is no 10-year sunset provision in the bill. H.R. 2038 permanently bans every gun that is currently banned and, with numerous, overlapping provisions:"

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=80739

"Question ...
Should Congress extend the assault weapons ban?
Yes
260 votes - 9%
No
2,309 votes - 85%"

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=19

"The ultimate and complete objective of the Sarah Brady Campaign to destroy the US Constitution, the Violence Policy Center, Rabbi Abe Foxman and the anti-Defamation League, and the New Jersey League of Jewish Women and others, is to ban all guns in America. First this type of locking mechanism will be banned, then yet another. Then the number of rounds will be reduced, again and again. Then, certain calibers will be banned. It’s the "numbers game" precedent they are trying to establish. This is the objective of senatorial Jews Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. Feinstein has already confessed her intentions on CBS’ 60 Minutes. "

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/lang101503.shtml

[MrBenchley]

40. From Virginia:

"Expiration of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is still more than 15 months away, but already the vultures are circling.
The ban may expire due to lack of House support, but it is not going to go quietly.
Not when every major national law enforcement organization in the country supported adopting the ban nine years ago. Not when President George Bush signed on as a supporter during his 2000 election campaign. And not when House Speaker Dennis Hastert quickly branded DeLay's comments as premature.
But if law enforcement officers can be believed, the guns on the banned list are a "weapon of choice" primarily, if not exclusively, for drug traffickers, gang members and paramilitary extremists.
"An AK-47 fires a military round," notes Fraternal Order of Police official Jim Pasco. "In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them."
Who needs that level of fire-power? Nobody who doesn't have X-ray vision."

http://www.underassault.org/content/press/press_na_vp_52003.html

[Superfly]

44. And the laughs keep coming from Bench

citing these passages as if they were his twisted gospel. Let's see:

"An AK-47 fires a military round," notes Fraternal Order of Police official Jim Pasco. "In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them."
Who needs that level of fire-power? Nobody who doesn't have X-ray vision.""

I have a 30-06 that is a military round (Developed in 1906 for the Springfield '03). Oh, and my .45 caliber pistol is a military round (Devloped in the 1910's for the M-1911 pistol). Hey, my .54 cal muzzleloader is a military round (Developed in the 1700's and improved through the 1800's). And my bow fires a military round (Arrows were used by armies to conduct war).

If we banned everything this guy calls a military round, there wouldn't be a gun left on the planet. But, that is your ultimate goal, isn't it?

Jeebus, Bench, can you post something with a little LESS hyperbole?

[Stilgar]

50. another great quote of the uninformed

"But if law enforcement officers can be believed, the guns on the banned list are a "weapon of choice" primarily, if not exclusively, for drug traffickers, gang members and paramilitary extremists."

Yes, that is why handguns rate as used far more often than rifles (that is the exclusive weapon of choice). How about looking up gun use in crimes and find out instead of wondering if what a cop said was true? Since only an idiot would believe rifles are used more by drug traffickers, gangs and militias(who do have them but are packing a handgun as well) than handguns.

[MrBenchley]

45. Columbus, Ohio:

"This nation is in far more danger of slipping deeper into gun-related violence than it is of banning all privately owned firearms. Hunters, target-shooters and collectors are in no danger of losing their pastimes because of a federal law that bans 19 specific weapons, large-capacity magazines and weapons with certain combinations of features identified with so-called -- and often misnamed -- assault weapons.

Yes, the law is flawed and, yes, manufacturers have found ways around it to sell rifles that look and operate very much like the banned weapons but that omit one or more of the specified features, such as a flash hider or pistol grip. Police say the Beltway sniper used such a weapon. Critics of the ban rightly point out that a sniper easily could have used any one of the many other rifles on the market that are not related, even in looks, to assault weapons.

True. But had there been no assault-weapons ban, a criminal such as the sniper legally could have purchased much more firepower. What, then, if such a criminal were cornered by police? Clearly, the potential for death and mayhem increases."

http://www.underassault.org/content/press/press_na_cd_6303.html

[Superfly]

47. ROTFLMAO!!

"manufacturers have found ways around it to sell rifles that look and operate very much like the banned weapons ...."

That's because the assault weapons ban DID NOT BAN ANY WEAPONS. It only banned the cosmetic features that some thought were too "assault weapon-ish".

[slackmaster]

57. Take that thought one small step farther

The REASON the AWB did not ban any weapons outright is that the federal government lacks the Constitutional authority to do so.

It's the same reason the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not ban automatic weapons.

[Stilgar]

56. In yet another great misconception

"No one has been harmed by the law and many people may have benefited by these weapons not being easily available. These guns are designed to spew as much lethal force as possible. The difference between them and machine guns is that machine guns will fire as long as their triggers are depressed while semiautomatic weapons require a trigger-pull for each shot, meaning they still are capable of firing several bullets per second."

Either you are using the semiauto to quickly aim and fire the rifle at a distance and need semi rapid fire
OR
you are up closer and firing several bullets per second, and not aiming that well.

1. the difference between 10 and 12 rounds will not matter
or
2. a handgun works much better

These weapons are just as easy to get now as they were in 1994.
and
all guns when they are designed are made to "spew as much lethal force as possible" sounds mean but they all spew lethal force.

[MrBenchley]

55. To be even-handed, The Chicago Tribune:

"Isn't it ironic, though, that while law enforcement is spending enormous resources trying to control gun possession and gun violence--and while society pays the enormous costs related to that violence--our members of Congress cannot muster enough backbone to renew the federal ban on assault rifles? As it stands, AK-47s and Uzis and other assault weapons, which are a heavy-duty nail file away from being converted to automatic weapons, are about to be put back on the market for people, including street gangs, to purchase legally.
The next time a gang's gun supplier gets caught with a carload of assault weapons, he'll be able to rightfully say, "Hey, these Uzis, AK-47s and TEC-9s are legal. Back off!" And while the police and federal agents walk away defeated, the supplier will be counting the money that he receives for the weapons of death he peddles. The gang members, too, will be counting money because they can more successfully terrorize anyone who dares to encroach on their turf--not just rival gangs, but cops or citizen watch groups. And, of course, our elected officials in Washington will be counting the NRA money that flows into their campaign funds."

http://www.underassault.org/content/press/press_na_ct_51603.html

[slackmaster]

58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE

...AK-47s and Uzis and other assault weapons, which are a heavy-duty nail file away from being converted to automatic weapons,...

Pure bullshit.

Any firearm that could be converted to fully automatic that easily would be considered a "machinegun conversion kit" and require a background check and NFA tax stamp to be manufactured or sold.

[Stilgar]

59. This one is as bad as the others

you would think that a "former chief of criminal prosecutions for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago" would know that conversion to automatic is illegal without the ban?

so lets appeal to parents
"How can our elected officials let the ban expire and then look into the faces of the families of victims caught in the crossfire of semi-automatic and automatic gunfire? "
the correct answer is...
I am sorry for your loss but the police should find and arrest the people with fullauto guns firing them in the street and arrest them. Since full autos are banned and it is illegal to shoot a gun in the city. What would you like me to do, make more laws so they can break them? There is nothing more I can do from my end, try going to your police and ask them to enforce the laws that we have passed.

[Romulus]

60. what a bunch of hooey

Ronald Safer is former chief of criminal prosecutions for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago

*snip*

As it stands, AK-47s and Uzis and other assault weapons, which are a heavy-duty nail file away from being converted to automatic weapons, are about to be put back on the market for people, including street gangs, to purchase legally. :eyes:

*snip*

Let's review the basics. You need three things for a drive-by shooting: a car, bullets and an assault weapon. (An ordinary handgun doesn't work well because you cannot shoot with accuracy from a moving vehicle; your purpose is defeated if you have to slowly squeeze off six rounds from a revolver.) The first two necessities--cars and bullets--are easy to get, and lawful. The third is about to join the other two. Anyone familiar with the street gangs that terrorize so many Chicagoans knows they surely are salivating at the prospect.:eyes:

*snip*

The next time a gang's gun supplier gets caught with a carload of assault weapons, he'll be able to rightfully say, "Hey, these Uzis, AK-47s and TEC-9s are legal. Back off!" And while the police and federal agents walk away defeated, the supplier will be counting the money that he receives for the weapons of death he peddles. :eyes:

[FormerMarine6055]

73. Let's ban cars instead.

You can't have a drive by shooting if everyone is walking.

And where in the BoR is the right to drive a car?

[MrBenchley]

61. The US Conference of Mayors

"WHEREAS, gun manufacturers have for many years made, marketed and sold to civilians slightly modified versions of military assault weapons designed with features specifically intended to increase lethality for military applications; and

WHEREAS, the availability of these military assault weapons has enabled violent criminals to commit countless devastating crimes including schoolyard massacres, bank robberies, serial sniper attacks, police ambushes and innumerable others that threaten the peace of our communities and the safety and security of our citizens and our law enforcement personnel; and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress in 1994, recognizing the grave threat to public safety posed by the continued availability to civilians of military assault weapons, banned the manufacture and sale of military assault weapons; and

WHEREAS, the ban does not cover firearms designed for hunting or other legitimate sporting uses; and

WHEREAS, it was the intent of the Congress in 1994 to remove from the civilian marketplace both specific military assault weapons and similar firearms with features particularly suited to military applications; and

WHEREAS, since 1994 many gun manufacturers have ignored the spirit of the law, exploiting several loopholes by making small modifications to banned guns while retaining the key military features that defined those guns as assault weapons; and

WHEREAS, the federal ban on military assault weapons, which was enacted on September 13, 1994, contained a sunset provision providing for the automatic repeal of the ban ten years following that date, or September 13, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the sunset date is fast approaching while gun violence, which experienced a brief decline in recent years, is once again on the rise; and

WHEREAS, as a result of the 1994 assault weapons ban, domestic manufacturers are prohibited from manufacturing or selling new high capacity clips (except for a limited number of clips for police, military, and nuclear plant protection use); and

WHEREAS, the 1994 high capacity clip ban did not apply to foreign magazines, and between September of 1994 and December of 2000, 47.3 million large clips were approved for importation for civilian use, from 50 different countries,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The United States Conference of Mayors urges the United States Congress and the Administration to renew the federal ban on military assault weapons and to close loopholes that have allowed gun manufacturers to continue to design, manufacture, market and sell to civilians military assault weapons; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that assault weapon ban reauthorization contain a large capacity ammunition clip import ban consistent with the domestic ban on large ammunition magazines."

http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/resolutions/71st_conference/csj_04.asp

[Withergyld]

62. WHEREAS

it is still a pantload

[MrBenchley]

63. The Episcopal Church

"More than 275 Consumer, Children’s, Civil Rights, Domestic Violence, Faith-Based, Law Enforcement and Gun Violence Prevention Organizations at the National, State, and Local Level Support S. 1431, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003"

We, the undersigned groups, strongly support the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003" (S. 1431), legislation introduced by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ). This legislation will not only make the assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban permanent, but will also significantly strengthen current law. The current ban is set to expire on September 13, 2004 unless Congress and the President act and pass new legislation.

The on-going need to ensure the safety of law enforcement and the protection of the public health, combined with the gun industry's actions to evade the current ban, give Congress a clear path to legislation. The Lautenberg bill to reauthorize the 1994 ban deals with military-style weapons available to the public by clarifying the definition of the term "assault weapon." The term "assault weapon" would be defined as any semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and includes one listed additional feature such as a pistol grip, fore-end grip, or collapsible stock. This improvement recognizes the features that represent the essence of an assault weapon and avoids having to defend current superfluous characteristics such as flash suppressors and bayonet mounts. In addition, this comprehensive bill would ban conversion parts kits; regulate "grandfathered" assault weapons and enhance the tracing of such weapons; ban all high-capacity magazines, including imports; and prohibit juvenile possession.

A majority of Americans clearly support reauthorizing the assault weapons ban."

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/eppn/publications_S1431.asp

[MrBenchley]

64. So according to the RKBA crowd

all these major newspapers, the Episcopal church and more than 275 other progressive organizations, the National Assocciation of Police Chiefs and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are lying...but Tom DeLay is telling the truth.

What is the name of this place again?

[slackmaster]

65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"

We aren't saying they are lying. We're saying they're misinformed. They are passing on appeals to fear; the arguments in favor of the AWB are based on emotion and not on facts.

The Violence Policy Center has one part of this discussion right: The ban has not fulfilled the intent of the people who wrote it. The ban was written by people who are so naive about firearms that they left enormous "loopholes" which allowed gun makers to walk right around it and keep selling essentially the same firearms.

Calls for a continuation of the ban to avoid a new proliferation of centerfire, semiautomatic firearms that accept detachable magazines and have one or more "military-style" features like pistol grip stocks are misguided. Sales have continued almost unabated since the ban went into effect almost 10 years ago. Expiration of the ban will not result in more dangerous weapons "on the streets" than we already have.

Crimes committed with "assault weapons" and their post-ban kin account for only a very small fraction of gun-related crime. Handguns and ordinary shotguns are used far more often than the more expensive and difficult to conceal than the weapons we prefer to call "sport-utility firearms".

[MrBenchley]

66. Ahem...

"Posted by slackmaster
We aren't saying they are lying."

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"

[slackmaster]

67. It's a conspiracy so vast that its members don't know they're part of it

Individuals like the editors who wrote their columns are passing on misinformation. Their culpability IMO is limited to a lack of effort to verify what they've been told by the propagandists who originate the bullshit.

The editors, etc. are unwitting dupes.

[MrBenchley]

68. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre...

And Wayne LaPierre is Queen of the May.

[MrBenchley]

69. The Presbyterian Church

"Gun violence is a serious concern in this country. According to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, each year 30,000 Americans die as a result of gun violence. Twice as many non-fatal wounds require emergency medical treatment. Every 2 hours and 40 minutes a child or youth is killed by guns. A gun kept in a home is 22 times more likely to be used for an unintentional shooting, homicide, or suicide than it is to be used for 1 incident of self-defense. In addition, more than $100 billion is spent every year on medical and social costs related to gun violence. At least half of that burden is borne by taxpayers.

Despite these alarming statistics, the government is not doing as much as it could to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of criminals. The Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994 is a good first step. This legislation banned production of certain kinds of semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatic assault weapons were specifically defined as automatic firearms that could accept a detachable ammunition magazine, and had two additional assault weapons’ characteristics as defined by a list included in the legislation. Certain weapons were also banned by name. Lawmakers were careful not to ban all semi-automatic guns, wanting to ensure that traditional guns designed for hunting and recreational activity would not be affected.
The Presbyterian Church USA supports renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. Since 1968 the PC(USA) General Assemblies have spoken in favor of gun control. It reaffirmed its position of gun control in 1990, stating, “The 202nd General Assembly (1990) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) supports gun control at federal, state, and local levels as the most effective response to the present crisis of gun violence.” Specifically, in 1998 the Assembly “Call(s) upon Presbyterians to intentionally work toward removing handguns and assault weapons from our homes and our communities…” Furthermore, the 212th Assembly urges the president and U.S. Congress to “pass laws banning all forms of assault weapons.” "

http://www.pcusa.org/washington/issuenet/wf-030812.htm

[slackmaster]

80. Nice blooper here

"...Semiautomatic assault weapons were specifically defined as automatic firearms that could accept a detachable ammunition magazine..."

Way to mislead the public. It goes hand-in-hand with all the hit pieces produced by the TV news channels, that invariably manage to include a blast or two of machinegun fire in every "documentary" about the AWB.

[funkyflathead]

72. Chuck Schumer doesn't agree with this

HA! HA!

[MrBenchley]

74. From the Newark Star-Ledger

"Lautenberg is sponsoring the reauthorization bill and it comes with some new wrinkles. He wants to plug the holes that manufacturers, aided and abetted by the National Rifle Association, have shot through it.

The current law bans weapons by name and by magazine capacity. No sooner had the ban become law than gun makers set out to beat it. Weapons were redesigned, given different names and "sportenized." A nip here and a tuck there and presto, a perfectly legal version of the Kalashnikov AK-47 was all yours. Perfect for disappointed job-seekers, the recently dismissed or for showing your high school classmates that you're really not a nerd after all.

The Lautenberg legislation would outlaw conversion kits. It restricts trade in grandfathered magazines, many of them stockpiled by dealers before the 1994 federal ban. And it prohibits possession of these weapons by juveniles.

It is a tribute to the common sense of most Americans that they are lined up behind the ban of weapons that don't make much sense unless you want to kill a lot of people in a hurry. But gun control advocates such as the Consumer Federation of America argue that reauthorizing the ban won't mean much unless its shortcomings are dealt with. This group did a recent poll showing 63 percent of Americans favor strengthening the assault weapons law, including 52 percent of gun owners. "

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1068360946296920.xml?starledger?ncolmac

[MrBenchley]

76. From Honolulu:

"CRIMINALS will be able to acquire their guns of choice more easily unless a federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons is renewed by Congress. President Bush favors extending the ban, but some congressional Republicans are poised to allow the weapons back on the streets. Bush should follow through on his campaign pledge and urge Congress to maintain the prohibition.
At the urging of Hawaii's law-enforcement coalition, the state Legislature approved a ban on assault pistols and pistol ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds three years before the federal ban was enacted. The lack of a federal ban would undermine the Hawaii law and assault-weapons bans in five other states, including California.
The current issue of Gun World magazine boasts that clones of banned assault weapons "sprang back with a vengeance and seem better than ever." The poster child of the clones is the Bushmaster XM15 M4 A3 assault rifle, marketed as a "post-ban carbine" and used last October by the Washington, D.C.-area snipers in the killing of 10 people and wounding of three."

http://starbulletin.com/2003/05/18/editorial/editorials.html

[slackmaster]

82. Benchley, your personal opinion please

"CRIMINALS will be able to acquire their guns of choice more easily unless a federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons is renewed by Congress...."

MrBenchley,

Are post-ban weapons "assault weapons" or are they not?

The Violence Policy Center says they are. If one accepts that as fact, the quoted sentence above is nonsense.

[MrBenchley]

84. Slack

Personally, my opinion is that your sideshow isn't worth participating in.

[slackmaster]

85. So may we conclude that you don't have an opinion?

n/t

[MrBenchley]

86. We may conclude

what we conclude about honesty and the worth of opinions....



"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd" We aren't saying they are lying.."

[MrBenchley]

77. From Oregon:

"Strength of convictions doesn't alter the reality that semi-automatic weapons with multiple assault features don't belong in our neighborhoods and are an awful perversion of the Second Amendment's intent.
Two-hundred years after the Second Amendment was adopted, a deranged drifter turned a semiautomatic variation of an AK-47 assault rifle on a schoolyard filled with children in Stockton.
… In 1994, the federal Brady Bill was passed. It prohibits the sale and manufacture of 19 types of semiautomatic weapons, including models with military-style features. It also protects 670 hunting weapons and shotguns.
Last week, Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, … announced the House of Representatives has no intention of renewing the ban. If Congress fails to act, it will be a major victory for the powerful National Rifle Association and mark the return of the AK-47 and its 18 counterpart weapons. "

http://www.dailytidings.com/2003/news0520/052003n6.shtml

[slackmaster]

79. This one's especially precious

"...In 1994, the federal Brady Bill was passed. It prohibits the sale and manufacture of 19 types of semiautomatic weapons, including models with military-style features..."

Great example of not checking out the facts. Whoever wrote this has not the dimmest idea about the subject.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Benchley, have you noticed that every single one of these editorials has glaring factual errors?

[1a2b3c]

90. Holy christ

You got me rolling around on the floor. Thanks for taking the time to read this crap being posted and then pointing out all the funny parts for those of us who just gave up trying.

Benchley, have you noticed that every single one of these editorials has glaring factual errors? None quite as bad as this one. Too funny slack.

[MrBenchley]

78. From Baltimore:

"CeaseFire Maryland, formerly Marylanders Against Handgun Abuse, praised the Baltimore City Council and its President, Sheila Dixon, for passing a resolution strongly supporting a permanent federal ban on military-style assault weapons. The resolution was passed at Monday's Council meeting.
The Resolution cites the fact that "...since 1994, many gun manufacturers have ignored the spirit of the law by manufacturing "copycat" guns nearly identical to those banned but for minor cosmetic changes." A prime example of one of these "copycat" guns is the Bushmaster assault rifle, a civilian version of the military M-16 and the gun used to kill ten and wound three in the D.C. area sniper attacks over a year ago.
At an October 18th seminar at Johns Hopkins University Chief Edwin Day of the Baltimore City Police Department's Detective division said: "Just the other night, an AR-15 assault rifle killed a young man in Baltimore. These guns can fire off 25-30 rounds of ammunition in a few seconds. Assault weapons are designed to instill fear and their lethality has held Kevlar-vested police at bay. Do we want the guardians of society to be outgunned by the bad guys?"
It turns out that support for a ban goes beyond Baltimore City. In a survey conducted last March by Gonzales/Arscott Research, it was revealed that nearly two-thirds of Marylanders support banning these weapons of war from our streets, including 52% of Republicans. Maryland would be following other states that have chosen to ban these guns, including Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, Connecticut and Hawaii."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,567547,00.html

[slackmaster]

81. Interesting commonality about articles mentioning the DC sniper

They attempt to couple the "military-style" features of the Bushmaster post-ban rifle with its use in the crime, yet there is no evidence that any of the AW stigmata nor even the semiautomatic fire capability of that rifle played any role in the shootings. The rifle doesn't even have a flash hider.

[MrBenchley]

83. Yeah, surrrrrrrre.....

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd" We aren't saying they are lying.."

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"

[Emoto]

89. I need more assault weapons in my house!!!

I do. Well, maybe I don't, but it is up to ME to decide what I need. I happen to enjoy shooting derivatives of military weapons, be they handguns or rifles. They provide a level of durability and resistance to the elements that many other guns do not, and they also evoke a bit of history.

The military-styled semi-automatic (only one bullet for each pull of the trigger) rifles available to the public are NOT assault weapons. They never have been. Furthermore, the military-styled semi-automatic rifles available to the public that the Brady Bunch is squawking about have NEVER been highly represented in the type of gun used in gun crime.

In addition, it is absurd to think that such a law - either the one in existence now, or any of the proposed new ones - can have any effect on crime. Just exactly how would preventing an honest person such as myself, whose greatest crime is driving 10 mph over the speed limit, from purchasing a Bushmaster, reduce crime? I would really like to know. Lock up the violent criminals and keep them locked up, if you want to do something about gun crime. This legislation is nothing but political grandstanding with feel-good legislation so that J. Random Politician can say to his or her constituents: "I really care about you and made the streets safe, so vote for me!".

[slackmaster]

91. OK, MrBenchley, I went to your link

Can you now admit that you fucked up?

[MrBenchley]

92. Gee, slack...

I'm not the dishonest individual yelling "Liar! Liar!" and then pretending he never did...

But go ahead and pretend that all of these newspapers and organziations are lying...it shows how desperate and pathetic your position is.

[slackmaster]

93. Where exactly did I post the words "Liar! Liar!"?

I can't recall ever doing so on the DU forums, and if I did it would have been (or should have been) deleted by the moderators and my hands slapped for violating the posting rules.

Who exactly have I called a liar, MrBenchley? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't anyone who posts on these forums.

So tell us, why do you keep posting false information about me? Why are you relying on a Straw Man rather than responding to what I've actually posted?

And can you EVER admit that you have made a mistake?

[MrBenchley]

95. Hahahahahaha!

Keep on spinning, slack.

[slackmaster]

96. I'll ask again

Where did I post "Liar! Liar!"?

Cite or retract.

[MrBenchley]

97. Ask until you're blue in the face, slack...

Be sure and do it in THIS thread, where people can see you doing it for themselves.....

[slackmaster]

98. Sterm Kever

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-hahahahahahaha!

Why don't you act like an adult and either cite where I said "Liar! Liar!" or admit that you have screwed the pooch again?

[demsrule4life]

94. Newspapers don't lie

on the other hand they sure in the hell don't know what the hell they are talking about at times.