Little Loudmouth
Member
Since when did so-called "assault weapons" 
become "weapons of massive destruction?"
:banghead: 
become "weapons of massive destruction?" :banghead: 
AWB Sunset as viewed by the other side.
- Thread starter dadman
- Start date
- Status
B
boofus
Guest
Someone might want to point out to these liberal dumbasses that the penalties and restrictions imposed by the 1994 crime bill is small peanuts compared to the 1934 National Firearms Act.
The real AK47s and Uzis, silencers and grenade launchers and Destructive Device shotguns are still regulated by the NFA even if the awb dies a well deserved death. You get up to 10 years and a $10,000 fine for each unregistered NFA weapon in your possession.
If the prospect of 10 years in federal prison for mere possession isn't deterring criminals then what makes them think the pissant 1994 crime bill will.
The AWB is a redundant piece of trash designed to smother the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans, nothing more.
The real AK47s and Uzis, silencers and grenade launchers and Destructive Device shotguns are still regulated by the NFA even if the awb dies a well deserved death. You get up to 10 years and a $10,000 fine for each unregistered NFA weapon in your possession.
If the prospect of 10 years in federal prison for mere possession isn't deterring criminals then what makes them think the pissant 1994 crime bill will.
The AWB is a redundant piece of trash designed to smother the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans, nothing more.
Deavis
Member
Dear Ms. Huffington,
I read your article, "Bush ducks for cover as NRA opens assault weapons fire..." on workingforchange.com today. I must say that your writing is very passionate and emotionally moving. However, I would like to kindly point out that your article contains numerous inaccuracies that, in the name of professional journalism, should be corrected at the first opportunity. If you would be so kind as to indulge me, here they are.
1) "Unless something changes in a hurry, combat-ready weapons like the AK-47, the Uzi and the TEC-9 assault pistol -- weaponry designed to mow down large numbers of people as efficiently as possible -- could once again be flooding the American market"
This statement is incorrect in multiple places. First, the Ak-47 and Uzi are fully-automatic weapons and have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), and most recently the Firearms Owners' Protection Act 1986 (FOPA). If you research those laws you will see that new AK-47s and Uzis have not been for sale to civilians since 1986 and are strictly regulated since they are fully-automatic weapons.
Second, while those two weapons are capable of very rapid fire, your description of their operation as ‘efficient killing machines’ is very innaccurate. Fully-automatic fire is incredibly inefficient at hitting targets as it is difficult to control. I contend that your statement is not standing on very firm ground from a tactical standpoint. Perhaps a training course at Blackwater would help clarify this issue.
Also, the Tec 9, while a very ominous looking weapon is incapable of fully-automatic fire, since it is a semi-automatic pistol. I am sure there is no need to desribe the difference in a fully automatic weapon and a semi automatic weapon to someone with you obvious knowledge of firearm capabilities. As you know, well know, the Tec-9 is no faster than many hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns currently legal in the United States.
2) “And thanks to the gaping loopholes in our gun laws, everyone from disgruntled teens to Osama bin Laden's henchmen will be able to legally obtain this kind of ferocious firepower at gun shows without even having to undergo a background checkâ€
This statement is also very misleading as it suggests being able to purchase a gun show is somehow a loophole in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993 (AWB). Actually, the “loophole†you are refering to is called a private sale. This is a completely legal practice that has never been regulated by the federal government because they have no power to regulate it under their 18 enumerated powers. Due to the lack of federal jurisdiction over private sales, many states have indeed passed laws to require a background check of all sales at a gunshow. To act as if this is a federal loophole is blatantly deceiving.
3) “Congress do everything in its power to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers and terroristsâ€
Once again, your statement is only a half-truth. Your statement infers that Congress has not already done everything within its powers to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists. Currently, there are over 20,000 gun laws available to federal prosecuters to keep guns out of the hands of the people you describe. Expanding that to 20,001 (a .005% change) is highly unlikely to have any effect on criminals since by their very definition, they do not follow the law. As a matter of fact, their have been no studies that can scientifically link the AWB to a decline in gun crimes, meaning that the ban has been ineffective.
4) “choose publicly between appeasing that most special of special interests, the NRA, or acting in the public interestâ€
This statement is what most normal people would call pregidous or perhaps hypocritical because just below it you affirm your support for the Brady campaign. The Brady campaign is also a special interest group that is seeking appeasement by the passage of the AWB renewal. However, you simply agree with the interests of the Brady Group, making your disapproval of the NRA meaningless.
5) “arm themselves with weapons of massive destructionâ€
However impressive the words may be, they are completely inappropriate for the weapons you are discussing. Surely you cannot compare a real WMD, such as a dirty bomb or Anthrax attack, with a Tec 9. No matter how you look at it, that is a stretch that not even Stretch Armstrong could make.
6) “We should make it crystal clear to those running for office that, if they fail to keep these killing machines off the streets, we will withhold something even more powerful. Our votes.â€
I think this is the best statement of you entire article and wish to commend you on it. This is exactly what republicans did after the AWB was passed and now the Republicans control Washington. I’m not trying to predict politics, but perhaps you should keep this law from passing because if the votes fall as they did last time after the 1994 AWB, the Republican party will once again dominate Washington as honest citizens stand up for their rights.
7) Lastly, this is a completely personal note, I think that it is probably wise to inform your audience that only one crime has ever been committed with a legally purchased NFA firearm and that crime, which was perpetrated by a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, involved the slaying of a police informant.
Putting together many of the suggestions, I have quickly paraphrased your article as it should stand with some of the corrections.
‘Bush ducks for cover as NRA opens assault weapons fire On the NRA's outrageous efforts to pressure Congress into allowing the federal ban on assault weapons to expire -- efforts that, unfortunately, are working.
Attention criminals, mark Spet. 13 in your day planner because thanks to to President Bush and his GOP pals in Congress, your murderous missions are not going to get any easier because it is still going to be illegal for your to purchase any firearm under federal and state laws.
You see, that’s the day that the 10 -year old federal ban on certain semi-automatic firearms is set to expire, making it perfectly legal for honest citizens never convicted of a felony offense to buy, sell and the same domestically produced semi-automatic firearms they have always been able to buy without the cosmetic features banned in 1993.
You heard me right: Unless something changes in a hurry, combat-ready weapons like the AK-47 and the Uzi, heavily regulated fully automatic weapons that have not been for sale to civilians since 1986 will still be unavailable to civilians. Current rules requiring extensive background checks, submission of fingerprints, and extensive scrutiny will still be applied to those honest citizens who wish to own a fully automatic weapon. The TEC-9 pistol, a semi-automatic weapon designed to shoot a single bullet at a time, exactly like every other modified browning action pistol, could once again be purchased by legitimate American gun owners, except in the numerous states that have outlawed that weapon.
And thanks to the Constitution, the federal government will be unable to regulate private sales of firearms between law-abiding citizens. However, do not fear, many states are acting responsibly to ensure that unsuspecting gun owners do not inadvertently sell a gun to a criminal who could be lying to him, as many criminals do, by requiring background checks on private sales conducted at gunshows. Have no fear, criminals will still not be allowed by our federal gun laws to legally obtain this kind of ordinary firepower at gun shows since dealers must still make everyone undergo a background check. It will not be a cash-and-carry mayhem, it will be an orderly sale of legal weapons to legitimate citizens as it has been for years.
After the U.S. Army toppled the Taliban, our soldiers found an al-Qaida training manual that included an entire section lauding the difficulty with which prospective terrorists in the United States could legally stock up on heavily regulated fully automatic weapons such as AK-47 or variations.
Bowing to the logical demands of the no-law-which-infringes-on-the-legitimate-right-of-an-honest-law-abiding-citizen-to-own-a-weapon crowd of most normal and responsible people, Republican congressional leaders have steadfastly refused to bring to a vote legislation that would extend a ban on cosmetic firearm features that only affects people who follow the law. The president has failed to put any pressure on Congress to do so since there are many incredibly important tasks, like real terrorist threats, that restricting the rights of honest citizens just doesn’t make sense. This despite the fact that, during the 2000 campaign, he said, "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our general society and that is why we have regulated them since 1934." Just last year White House spokesman Scott McClellan unequivocally affirmed that the president "supports reauthorization of the current law." However, it seems that Congress, the people elected to represent the people, have no desire to push this legislation through to the president because they realize that it is ineffectual at fighting crime.
Given his much-touted commitment to keeping us safe, you'd think that the renewal of the assault weapons ban would be a high priority for the president, except that it seems the AWB has had no affect on crime. Even the VPC admitted that the AWB has had no affect and the CDC has failed to discover any discernable change in crime. Especially in an election year, when many Democrats were ousted for passing the AWB in 1993, Bush is smart to realize that trampling the rights of honest citizens to appease a special interest group, such as the VPC, which is only interested in the complete ban of firearms, is not a good idea.
After all, recent unscientific polls that were not backed by credible evidence and traceable citations show that over 70 percent of Americans support keeping the ban on the books despite most of them not knowing that the ban does not cover fully-automatic weapons, as many uniformed and unscrupulous people would have them believe. Supposedly, so does every major police organization in the country, despite their membership being solidly divided on the issue. Even 64 percent of duck hunters support the ban, realizing that outlawing weapons that feature flash suppressors, silencers, folding stocks, bayonet mounts and large-capacity ammo magazines is not an attack on the Second Amendment it is an attack on cosmetic features that have no bearing on the effectivness of a firearm -- it's simply that they are ignorant when it comes to firearms other than a shotgun.
By not playing politics with the VPC or Brady campaign, our safety has not been affected in the least by the president who has shown that supporting ignorant legislation is a bad idea. If keeping Americans out of harm's way were truly his top priority, he'd stand up to the anti-gun lobby and demand that Congress do everything in its power to make prosecuters enforce the 20,000 current federal laws to keep all weapons out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers and terrorists.
At the very least, he should pressure House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to put the ban to rest and instead force our elected representatives to show publicly between appeasing the most rabid special of special interests, the VPC, and acting in the interest of all law abiding citizens by sending criminals and terrorists to jail.
Voters who have had their toenail clippers confiscated at airport safety checks before being allowed to head out on their summer vacations may not understand that terrorists are going to attack America no matter how many restrictions we place on our liberty. They will not look kindly on a leader who, for no other reason than political expediency, makes it easier for the real bad guys to trample the rights of honest Americans and force them to blindly remove their shoes for a federal employee that would better be put to use searching cargo containers for illegal arms and real weapons of massive destruction.
We should make it crystal clear to those running for office that, if they fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and continue to deny rights to honest citizens that we will withhold something even more powerful. Our votes.'
Thank you for your time and if you need any help editing your article, please email me back. I have numerous other small suggestions and plenty of factual documentation that we could add to your article to make it a more objective and truthful piece of sensational journalism.
Sincerely,
Mr. Longwinded
, I feel so much better.
I read your article, "Bush ducks for cover as NRA opens assault weapons fire..." on workingforchange.com today. I must say that your writing is very passionate and emotionally moving. However, I would like to kindly point out that your article contains numerous inaccuracies that, in the name of professional journalism, should be corrected at the first opportunity. If you would be so kind as to indulge me, here they are.
1) "Unless something changes in a hurry, combat-ready weapons like the AK-47, the Uzi and the TEC-9 assault pistol -- weaponry designed to mow down large numbers of people as efficiently as possible -- could once again be flooding the American market"
This statement is incorrect in multiple places. First, the Ak-47 and Uzi are fully-automatic weapons and have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), and most recently the Firearms Owners' Protection Act 1986 (FOPA). If you research those laws you will see that new AK-47s and Uzis have not been for sale to civilians since 1986 and are strictly regulated since they are fully-automatic weapons.
Second, while those two weapons are capable of very rapid fire, your description of their operation as ‘efficient killing machines’ is very innaccurate. Fully-automatic fire is incredibly inefficient at hitting targets as it is difficult to control. I contend that your statement is not standing on very firm ground from a tactical standpoint. Perhaps a training course at Blackwater would help clarify this issue.
Also, the Tec 9, while a very ominous looking weapon is incapable of fully-automatic fire, since it is a semi-automatic pistol. I am sure there is no need to desribe the difference in a fully automatic weapon and a semi automatic weapon to someone with you obvious knowledge of firearm capabilities. As you know, well know, the Tec-9 is no faster than many hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns currently legal in the United States.
2) “And thanks to the gaping loopholes in our gun laws, everyone from disgruntled teens to Osama bin Laden's henchmen will be able to legally obtain this kind of ferocious firepower at gun shows without even having to undergo a background checkâ€
This statement is also very misleading as it suggests being able to purchase a gun show is somehow a loophole in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993 (AWB). Actually, the “loophole†you are refering to is called a private sale. This is a completely legal practice that has never been regulated by the federal government because they have no power to regulate it under their 18 enumerated powers. Due to the lack of federal jurisdiction over private sales, many states have indeed passed laws to require a background check of all sales at a gunshow. To act as if this is a federal loophole is blatantly deceiving.
3) “Congress do everything in its power to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers and terroristsâ€
Once again, your statement is only a half-truth. Your statement infers that Congress has not already done everything within its powers to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists. Currently, there are over 20,000 gun laws available to federal prosecuters to keep guns out of the hands of the people you describe. Expanding that to 20,001 (a .005% change) is highly unlikely to have any effect on criminals since by their very definition, they do not follow the law. As a matter of fact, their have been no studies that can scientifically link the AWB to a decline in gun crimes, meaning that the ban has been ineffective.
4) “choose publicly between appeasing that most special of special interests, the NRA, or acting in the public interestâ€
This statement is what most normal people would call pregidous or perhaps hypocritical because just below it you affirm your support for the Brady campaign. The Brady campaign is also a special interest group that is seeking appeasement by the passage of the AWB renewal. However, you simply agree with the interests of the Brady Group, making your disapproval of the NRA meaningless.
5) “arm themselves with weapons of massive destructionâ€
However impressive the words may be, they are completely inappropriate for the weapons you are discussing. Surely you cannot compare a real WMD, such as a dirty bomb or Anthrax attack, with a Tec 9. No matter how you look at it, that is a stretch that not even Stretch Armstrong could make.
6) “We should make it crystal clear to those running for office that, if they fail to keep these killing machines off the streets, we will withhold something even more powerful. Our votes.â€
I think this is the best statement of you entire article and wish to commend you on it. This is exactly what republicans did after the AWB was passed and now the Republicans control Washington. I’m not trying to predict politics, but perhaps you should keep this law from passing because if the votes fall as they did last time after the 1994 AWB, the Republican party will once again dominate Washington as honest citizens stand up for their rights.
7) Lastly, this is a completely personal note, I think that it is probably wise to inform your audience that only one crime has ever been committed with a legally purchased NFA firearm and that crime, which was perpetrated by a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, involved the slaying of a police informant.
Putting together many of the suggestions, I have quickly paraphrased your article as it should stand with some of the corrections.
‘Bush ducks for cover as NRA opens assault weapons fire On the NRA's outrageous efforts to pressure Congress into allowing the federal ban on assault weapons to expire -- efforts that, unfortunately, are working.
Attention criminals, mark Spet. 13 in your day planner because thanks to to President Bush and his GOP pals in Congress, your murderous missions are not going to get any easier because it is still going to be illegal for your to purchase any firearm under federal and state laws.
You see, that’s the day that the 10 -year old federal ban on certain semi-automatic firearms is set to expire, making it perfectly legal for honest citizens never convicted of a felony offense to buy, sell and the same domestically produced semi-automatic firearms they have always been able to buy without the cosmetic features banned in 1993.
You heard me right: Unless something changes in a hurry, combat-ready weapons like the AK-47 and the Uzi, heavily regulated fully automatic weapons that have not been for sale to civilians since 1986 will still be unavailable to civilians. Current rules requiring extensive background checks, submission of fingerprints, and extensive scrutiny will still be applied to those honest citizens who wish to own a fully automatic weapon. The TEC-9 pistol, a semi-automatic weapon designed to shoot a single bullet at a time, exactly like every other modified browning action pistol, could once again be purchased by legitimate American gun owners, except in the numerous states that have outlawed that weapon.
And thanks to the Constitution, the federal government will be unable to regulate private sales of firearms between law-abiding citizens. However, do not fear, many states are acting responsibly to ensure that unsuspecting gun owners do not inadvertently sell a gun to a criminal who could be lying to him, as many criminals do, by requiring background checks on private sales conducted at gunshows. Have no fear, criminals will still not be allowed by our federal gun laws to legally obtain this kind of ordinary firepower at gun shows since dealers must still make everyone undergo a background check. It will not be a cash-and-carry mayhem, it will be an orderly sale of legal weapons to legitimate citizens as it has been for years.
After the U.S. Army toppled the Taliban, our soldiers found an al-Qaida training manual that included an entire section lauding the difficulty with which prospective terrorists in the United States could legally stock up on heavily regulated fully automatic weapons such as AK-47 or variations.
Bowing to the logical demands of the no-law-which-infringes-on-the-legitimate-right-of-an-honest-law-abiding-citizen-to-own-a-weapon crowd of most normal and responsible people, Republican congressional leaders have steadfastly refused to bring to a vote legislation that would extend a ban on cosmetic firearm features that only affects people who follow the law. The president has failed to put any pressure on Congress to do so since there are many incredibly important tasks, like real terrorist threats, that restricting the rights of honest citizens just doesn’t make sense. This despite the fact that, during the 2000 campaign, he said, "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our general society and that is why we have regulated them since 1934." Just last year White House spokesman Scott McClellan unequivocally affirmed that the president "supports reauthorization of the current law." However, it seems that Congress, the people elected to represent the people, have no desire to push this legislation through to the president because they realize that it is ineffectual at fighting crime.
Given his much-touted commitment to keeping us safe, you'd think that the renewal of the assault weapons ban would be a high priority for the president, except that it seems the AWB has had no affect on crime. Even the VPC admitted that the AWB has had no affect and the CDC has failed to discover any discernable change in crime. Especially in an election year, when many Democrats were ousted for passing the AWB in 1993, Bush is smart to realize that trampling the rights of honest citizens to appease a special interest group, such as the VPC, which is only interested in the complete ban of firearms, is not a good idea.
After all, recent unscientific polls that were not backed by credible evidence and traceable citations show that over 70 percent of Americans support keeping the ban on the books despite most of them not knowing that the ban does not cover fully-automatic weapons, as many uniformed and unscrupulous people would have them believe. Supposedly, so does every major police organization in the country, despite their membership being solidly divided on the issue. Even 64 percent of duck hunters support the ban, realizing that outlawing weapons that feature flash suppressors, silencers, folding stocks, bayonet mounts and large-capacity ammo magazines is not an attack on the Second Amendment it is an attack on cosmetic features that have no bearing on the effectivness of a firearm -- it's simply that they are ignorant when it comes to firearms other than a shotgun.
By not playing politics with the VPC or Brady campaign, our safety has not been affected in the least by the president who has shown that supporting ignorant legislation is a bad idea. If keeping Americans out of harm's way were truly his top priority, he'd stand up to the anti-gun lobby and demand that Congress do everything in its power to make prosecuters enforce the 20,000 current federal laws to keep all weapons out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers and terrorists.
At the very least, he should pressure House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to put the ban to rest and instead force our elected representatives to show publicly between appeasing the most rabid special of special interests, the VPC, and acting in the interest of all law abiding citizens by sending criminals and terrorists to jail.
Voters who have had their toenail clippers confiscated at airport safety checks before being allowed to head out on their summer vacations may not understand that terrorists are going to attack America no matter how many restrictions we place on our liberty. They will not look kindly on a leader who, for no other reason than political expediency, makes it easier for the real bad guys to trample the rights of honest Americans and force them to blindly remove their shoes for a federal employee that would better be put to use searching cargo containers for illegal arms and real weapons of massive destruction.
We should make it crystal clear to those running for office that, if they fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and continue to deny rights to honest citizens that we will withhold something even more powerful. Our votes.'
Thank you for your time and if you need any help editing your article, please email me back. I have numerous other small suggestions and plenty of factual documentation that we could add to your article to make it a more objective and truthful piece of sensational journalism.
Sincerely,
Mr. Longwinded
, I feel so much better.Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Yeah, and it might start raining nickels, too, but I'm not planning to sit up all night sewing stout canvas bags so I can take them to the bank in the morning.
Contact Arianna
Arianna Online
1158 26th Street
P.O. Box 426
Santa Monica, CA 90403
arianna <at> ariannaonline <dot> com
http://www.ariannaonline.com/about/index.php
"Arianna Huffington lives in Los Angeles."
Arianna Online
1158 26th Street
P.O. Box 426
Santa Monica, CA 90403
arianna <at> ariannaonline <dot> com
http://www.ariannaonline.com/about/index.php
"Arianna Huffington lives in Los Angeles."
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Yeah, unleash that cash and carry mayhem we had before September 1994
mrapathy2000
member
ah you gotta love ignorance sometimes. your murderous missions are about to get a whole lot easier. by what logic or reasoning? I cant believe an intelligent open minded or closed minded individual would seriously think a terrorist would buy weapons in the US to convert giving up ID background check and most likely being seen on video camera when they could smuggle them in covertly raising no suspicions along with drugs and various other contraband smuggled into this country. slaves by the cargo container load and drugs by the palette. slipping through customes or one of the poorly defended borders mexico and canada. mexico probably being easy cause they could buy off the police in mexico and get coyotes or other smugglers to give best method and route.
some people just amaze with ignorance. not that I am great I sure turn my mind off to number of things then again who does not.
nothing like turning the law abiding firearm industry into nothing but contraband & arms dealers that kill anybody that gets in theyre way and sells to anyone with the cold hard cash. they need a reality check in lala land.
heck terrorist could setup a machine shop buy parts kits and 0% or 80% receivers and make fullauto and short barrel firearms they want without much suspicion. along with grenades,silencers and probably take a bulldozer and armor plate it and make pipe bombs and rockets.
Last edited:
greyhound
Member
I actually used to have my long distance service through the company (Working Assets) that published this. ( I work at a very liberal place, and it actually was a pretty good deal financially.)
Right after 9/11 they started banging the "No war, ever - its bad for children and other living things" drum, and I cancelled twice quick.
Regarding AWB, rumor has it that Feinstein is going to attach it to the nationwide police CCW bill (which passed the House), so write your Senators NOW.....
Right after 9/11 they started banging the "No war, ever - its bad for children and other living things" drum, and I cancelled twice quick.
Regarding AWB, rumor has it that Feinstein is going to attach it to the nationwide police CCW bill (which passed the House), so write your Senators NOW.....
SB88LX
Member
Deavis, kickass letter. Too bad Ms. Huffington doesn't have a transparent abdomen, that way she wouldn't have to do the impossible and pull her head out of her ass to read it.
- Status