America Wants the Assault Weapons Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.

FRIZ

Member
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
193
Here is an anti Second Amendment article.

The Washington Post
Monday, July 19, 2004; Page A17

America Wants the Assault Weapons Ban
By Howard M. Metzenbaum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60579-2004Jul18.html

A decade ago I was privileged to lead a fight with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on what for me has become a deeply personal issue: the federal ban on assault weapons. These killing machines had no place on our streets in 1994 and they have no place now. Yet as the days pass, it is becoming clear that many members of Congress are content to skip through the summer months doing nothing while awaiting this fall's greatest prize -- not the elections, but the sunset of the assault weapons ban.

Ten years after that great victory we are facing the extinction of an important public safety law that was an unusual piece of bipartisan lawmaking. In 1994 I had the support of two men whom I would rarely call my allies, Republican icons Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani. As a result, Congress was able to put public safety ahead of special-interest politics.

What's going on these days, by contrast, is typical political doublespeak. The president speaks publicly in support of the assault weapons ban but refuses to lobby actively for it. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, says the president never told him personally that he wants the assault weapons ban renewed, so DeLay isn't going to pass it.

There you have it. The president says he supports the assault weapons ban but refuses to lift a finger for it. And the powerful House majority leader -- who does not support the ban -- is pretending that all it would take to pass it is a word from the president.

This is a tragic development for many reasons, not the least of which is that the public wants this legislation. A new study, "Unconventional Wisdom," by the Consumer Federation of America and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, found that a substantial majority of likely voters in 10 states support renewing and strengthening the federal assault weapons ban, as do most gun owners and National Rifle Association supporters. The survey found that:

• Voters in Midwestern states supported renewing the assault weapons ban slightly more than those in Southwestern states. Midwestern states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri) averaged 72 percent support for renewal. Southwestern states (Arizona and New Mexico) averaged 67 percent. In Florida, 81 percent of likely voters support renewing the ban.

• Rural states, traditionally seen as very conservative on gun issues, strongly favored renewing the ban. Sixty-eight percent of voters in South Dakota and West Virginia support renewal.

• Majorities of gun owners in all but two states favored renewing the ban. Even in those two states, Missouri and Ohio, only slightly less than 50 percent of gun owners and NRA supporters favored renewing the ban.

• In nine of 10 states surveyed, union households supported renewing the ban by at least 60 percent. In Pennsylvania, 80 percent of union households supported renewing the ban and 73 percent supported strengthening it.

• At least 60 percent of current and former military members and military families supported renewing the ban in all states surveyed. In Wisconsin, more than three-fourths (77 percent) of current and former military members and military families support renewing the ban.

In March the Senate passed a renewed ban as an amendment to a gun industry immunity bill, which was the NRA's top legislative priority. President Bush issued a statement of administration policy calling the assault weapons ban amendment "unacceptable." The amendment passed on a bipartisan vote, 52 to 47, but the underlying bill was defeated. It was a stunning loss for the gun lobby. The NRA opposes even a straight renewal of the ban. It maintains that most Americans don't want the ban renewed, let alone strengthened, and that Congress should let the ban expire. Not true.

The gun industry is licking its chops waiting for the ban to expire. In an upcoming report from the Consumer Federation of America, "Back in Business," one assault weapon manufacturer's sales and marketing director told us, "When the AWB sunsets, which I fully expect it to do, we will be manufacturing pre-ban style weapons and shipping them to the general public through distribution systems and dealers the very next day without doubt . . . .We look forward to Sept. 14th with great enthusiasm."

After 19 years in the Senate, I understand differences of opinions, ideologies and constituencies. What I cannot understand is why congressional leaders and the administration think that the American public won't notice that the ban expired. We'll notice, and they'll be sorry.

The writer, a former Democratic senator from Ohio, is chairman of the Consumer Federation of America.
 
• In nine of 10 states surveyed, union households supported renewing the ban by at least 60 percent.

If that statistic is even remotely correct, the Dems are in deep trouble as it implies that 40% of one of their core constituencies do not support it. If you believe the other numbers in this survey, more union members oppose the ban than NRA members!

Yet the Dems decided to make it a political issue and nominated both a President and VP candidate who flew back in the middle of a campaign to make a rare vote in support of something 40% of union members oppose.

The other thing the Dems don't seem to understand is that the majority of people who support the ban could probably care less one way or the other whether it is renewed. Most of them wouldn't support it to begin with if they were better informed and they are not better informed because they don't give a damn about the issue.

The people who oppose the ban though... these are not people who are going to sit idle on election day and the ban WILL be a big deal to them. I've made a 1,001 good arguments that I thoroughly believe about why this is the wrong year for a protest vote; but I will absolutely be making that protest vote if the ban is signed.
 
I could care less what "America" wants.

Just because the mob wants to rape, pillage, and plunder doesn't make it right. Perhaps I should consult with "America" on what if any prescription drugs I should be taking. Ludicrous? Damn right and so is this crud. Anyone who refers to the masses on a technical issue is a fool.
 
I can't find the article right now, but I recently read a piece about the "survey". It turned out that the AWB was never mentioned in the questions. They were asking something along the lines of "do you support the banning of military weapons being sold to the public?"

That's part of the reason why I don't pay attention to survey results unless the question is actually listed.
 
quote:A decade ago I was privileged to lead a fight with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on what for me has become a deeply personal issue



Deeply personal issue?

Yeah, he gets a paycheck from one of the orgs that conducted this "study".


The writer, a former Democratic senator from Ohio, is chairman of the Consumer Federation of America.

A new study, "Unconventional Wisdom," by the Consumer Federation of America and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
 
What is the definition of "wants"? There's a big difference between "uhhhh... sure" and "I demand!" I suspect that most Americans "want" this only in terms of a spur-of-the-moment passive response to a push-poll but not in terms of being actively concerned about it.
 
Seeing the author's name I didn't need to read any further.

Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Folks, we have a winner! I thought that the senile old b@stard was dead - oh, well, I've always been an optomist.

Seriously, anytime a Dem quotes statistics I am very suspicious. When it is an anti-gun (relatively speaking, of course) Dem talking about any issue related to guns, I operate under the assumption that the probability of a VERY misleading or outright false conclusion = 1.00.

Regarding this article, most people wouldn't know an "assault weapon" (as defined by the AWB) if it came up and bit them in the @$$. The issue is too complex, and not even on most people's radar, so asking the average person for an opinion is merely an exercise in manipulation. The truth is that most folks think that full autos were prohibited in '94, and they don't want them "on the street." When informed about the issue, the few that give a damn about it suddenly realize how absurd the law is (e.g. magazines of > 10-round capacity are banned, except for the tens of millions that are out there and available to anyone with money).

I can't wait until the AWB abomination dies, just to hear and see the apoplexy on the Left. That should be quite entertaining (almost as much as telling anti-gun family members that you can't remember how many guns you own, because you've long since lost count).:evil:
 
"When the AWB sunsets, which I fully expect it to do, we will be manufacturing pre-ban style weapons and shipping them to the general public through distribution systems and dealers the very next day without doubt . . . .We look forward to Sept. 14th with great enthusiasm."

Lets put that through the anti gun zealot decoder ring....

WE'LL BE HANDING THESE ASSAULT WEAPONS OUT TO ANYONE ON THE STREET AND THEN THEY ARE COMING TO KILL YOU ALL MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
Has anybody noticed a BIG increase in the AWB hysteria? Guys, I'm worried about going another 6-7 weeks like this. All it will take is a large public uproar to screw it up and cause George W. to reconsider his position.
 
I was shocked to find out over the weekend that a good friend of mine had really no idea what the AWB really is. He wanted to get a suppressor for his carbine and was shocked to find out that he couldn't have it installed on his post-ban AR because the ATF considers it a flash hider! In other words, he was completely ignorant of the law until it had a direct impact on him. That is the problem folks. Too much ignorance going around. When I asked him what he thought the ban covered, he said he thought it applied to select fire weapons. When I asked him why his AR had no flash suppressor or bayonet lug, he said he assumed they left the flash suppressor off because it impaired accuracy (I know, I know) and that the lug was gone because it was useless (he had a point there). When I told him he couldn't put an adjustable stock on there he asked why. I told him and watched his face turn ghostly white. Seems he had another post-ban AR a few years ago with a GI 4 pos stock on it that was not pinned. He had put the stock on there because he planned to use it as a truck gun and found it easier to fit behind the seat. He was pulled over for having a tail light out and the cop asked to search the vehicle!!! Honestly, he is a "suspicious looking character" so he let the cop have a look see rather than make a fuss. He advised him of the weapon and the cop pulled it out, looked at it for a few seconds, and put it back. Fortunately for him the cop was either just as ignorant as he, or was just as ambivalent towards the ban as I am and ignored it altogether. Needless to say, he spent a good bit of time writing letters to Saxby and Zell this weekend...even though they strongly oppose renewal. Used to be, I bought in to the argument that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it...but I'm not sure I buy into that anymore.
 
Yes, most people just really don't know what the law encompasses.

I asked a shooter here at work about a couple of ranges in the area that he's used. Got to talking a bit and he mentioned that somebody was shooting some really loud rifle that was kicking up some large amounts of dirt last weekend while he was there. Seems he was rather impressed with the performance. His words, "Must have been some kind of assault rifle."

Ack. I thought about trying to explain it away and digging up pictures of .223 vs 30-06 online but thought better of it. I've explained it once before. Fell on deaf ears it seems.

He's an assisant firearms instructor for pistol safety courses in the area. Smart guy, just doesn't know much about anything outside of 9mm, .40 and .45acp.
 
The AWB , like any other so called " gun control law " will only affect the law abiding majority of gun owners . The bad guys can always get whatever kind of weapon they want as long as they have the money for it , unless of course they steal it , then it's free . The bad guys don't fill out forms and sign thier names when they buy guns . What the AWB WILL do is open the door for an eventual ban of ALL semi-auto rifles and shotguns since basicly these so called " assualt weapons " are nothing more than semi-auto rifles . I will give an example of how utterly ridiculous the AWB is ; I bought a Norinco SKS rifle a while back and since it had a bayonet mount I asked what happend to the bayonet . The gunshop guy told me he could not attach the bayonet to the rifle because if the bayonet is attached it makes the rifle an " illeagal assault rifle " :confused: nor could he sell me the bayonet seperately :rolleyes: ( it didn't really matter to me , I didn't want the bayonet anyway ) Isn't it good to know we have a law to keep dangerous bayonets out of the hands of people who buy thier guns leagaly ?:D
 
If these "killing machines" have no place on our streets why are the police and armed federal police agencies all *exempt* from the ban?

Why is every police department that isn't already using these now-"Law Enforcement Only" weapons trying like crazy to get them? (Like the San Francisco PD, which is whining that it is "outgunned" by muggers and crackheads.:rolleyes: )

Why do the police need weapons with "Just one purpose -- to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible," hm? Surely plain old six-shooters or lever action Winchesters would suffice for shooting crippled old men armed with empty soda cans in their beds.

Oh yeah, as for what "America" wants, everybody sworn into public office, the military, or (it used to be) the police, swears to uphold and defend the *Constitution* of the United States -- *not* the will of the majority, or the will of the politicians currently in power, or a particular piece of ground, or baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet. The *Constitution*, as *written*.

MCB
 
heh i have to say (blushing) that i thought the 1994 ban was on mag sizes and on select fire...

little did i know that the select fire issue came up some 70 years ago.

Dumb question - how did we as a people let that go forward? the '34 thing... why do i have to jump through hoops to own a gun that someone thinks i shouldn't. prolly just wasn't an issue... but as several are fond of saying ... its not the bill of needs - its the bill of rights...

for the record i don't know i need a fully auto weapon... personlly - i'd just like a 3shot burst capability... don't want full auto. <rofl>

just bugs me that i've done nothing wrong - i've broken no law - i've worked and paid taxes and i've done everything like i'm supposed to... and yet... i'm considered a criminal before the fact because i'm not allowed to own those weapons cause i MIGHT.

Ya know - cause one MIGHT is a powerful argument that often gets turned into no one needs any freedoms... simply because they MIGHT.

J/Tharg!
 
Tharg,

No shame in not knowing. Now that you know, make sure everyone else does too. There are a lot of folks out there who have no idea what it really is. The more they know, the less they like it. The people have been sold a bill of goods...and one by one, they're waking up. We've got to shout the truth from the rooftops and overpower the rhetoric and lies coming from the other side.
 
How often have we all heard in the main stream press that Bush lied, and that there was a lack of intelligence (Bush's fault) or bad intelligence (Bush's fault again) with regards to Iraq.

Well, now the mainstream press is lying, using bad intelligence, and a lack of intelligence (what else is new) with regards to so called "assault weapons". They keep using terms like AK47 and UZI, which conjers up specters of select fire or machine guns. This scares the living crap out of the ill informed or mis informed.

Then they use bogus studies to try and say that the law has had a big impact on crime. They continually go back to ATF tracing and how that is somehow truely indicative of how many of these guns are used in crimes vs. other guns. The well informed know that so called assault weapons are used in a very small percentage of crimes, less than 1%. Handguns are a much bigger problem with criminals, as someone above rightly pointed out.

This is as big a disinformation campaign as has ever been waged by the mainstream press. And they accuse the current administration of trying to deceive the public to further a political agenda. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle round.
 
Exactly right, but this is what we're dealing with-an enemy without morals, principles, ethics or honesty willing and able to repeat lies ad nauseum until they are accepted as fact. An enemy devoid of reason, driven only by emotion and inner "feeling" yet considering themselves morally and intellectually superior.
 
Majorities of gun owners in all but two states favored renewing the ban. Even in those two states, Missouri and Ohio, only slightly less than 50 percent of gun owners and NRA supporters favored renewing the ban.
Us Missourians love our SKS's. Good cheap deer rifles. And even better at keeping the Kansans and Iowans on their side of the border. :D
 
"America Wants Slavery!" -- Raleigh Post Dispatch, August 5, 1861

"America Wants Segregation!" -- Selma Courier Times, May, 1964

"America Wants Prohibition!" -- Chicago Times, September 1920

"America Wants to Remain Neutral!" -- Hawaii Journal Constitution, November 1941

Let's face it, sometimes "America" just doesn't get it.

(and yeah, the headlines are made up),
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top