Denver Post Editorial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
272
Location
Colorado
Yesterday's Denver Post Editorial: Calling for the reinstatement of the AWB, despite the fact that the Colorado Springs shooter was stopped by an armed citizen (no mention). Note the comment about the 2nd amendment still "giving" people the right to keep and bear arms during the AWB.

Frankly, I don't know why they brought up Klebold and Harris as they committed their crimes during the ban and broke 20 then existing gun laws in doing so.

I guess there's no confusing zealots with the truth.

What a crock.:barf: :barf: :barf:

Renew ban on assault weapons
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 12/14/2007 05:22:23 PM MST

Matthew Murray has given us another reason to renew the ban on high-powered assault weapons.

Murray was the troubled young man who killed four people last Sunday and injured others at religious organizations in Arvada and Colorado Springs. Almost exactly a year before the rampage, he purchased an AK-47 assault rifle and a large shipment of ammunition. Less than two months later, he purchased another.

He was armed with a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle, the kind used by military and law-enforcement personnel, during his killing spree in Colorado Springs. He also had handguns. The AK-47 assault rifle was found in the trunk of his car.

Such extraordinary firepower is not meant for hunting animals or target shooting. We see only one other purpose. And so did Murray.

The gun control debate is tricky, and emotional. But Congress should move quickly to re-enact a federal assault weapons prohibition.

Such a ban was approved in 1994 under the Clinton administration with the support of former Presidents Reagan, Carter and Ford. Yet, President George W. Bush, who declared his support for the ban in 2000, caved to the gun lobby and allowed it to expire in September 2004.

Congress needs to bring it back. And if congressional lawmakers lack the political will, Colorado lawmakers ought to follow the example of Maryland, which just enacted the Assault Weapons Ban of 2007. (It would mean amending a law now on the books.)

The law approved by Congress in 1994 banned 19 specific assault weapons, both rifles and handguns. The law also made it illegal to manufacture or import military-style semiautomatic rifles, shotguns or pistols.

During the ban, the number of assault weapons linked to crimes dropped. The proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crime dropped by two-thirds from 1995 to 2004.

The law didn't ban all semi-automatic guns, only those with multiple assault weapon features.

Opponents argued that it placed an unfair burden on manufacturers. They also claimed that assault weapons were not a danger to the public — you know the argument: guns don't kill people, people kill people. True, but they need the guns to do it.

And assault weapons are too easily available to people like Murray.

The families of Murray's victims know that all too well. So do the families and friends of the Columbine High School victims. One of the weapons used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold was a variation of the then banned TEC-DC9 semiautomatic pistol.

During the ban, the U.S. Constitution still gave citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It didn't keep Americans from owning guns for protection or sport.

Frankly, we can't figure out the benefits of having assault weapons easily available. Law enforcement officers universally agree that people wanting self protection don't carry assault weapons. But criminals do.
 
I think we need someone to write an editorial. IF the post doesn't publish it, or consider it, file a lawsuit for discrimination. I'm sure there's some other legal action you could take for such a powerful force (THE NEWSPAPER) suggesting to ban our rights as free citizens of this country? YES? NO???? MCFLY?????
 
Lol, perhaps someone should inform this moron that the XM-15 is too low powered to deer hunt with in most states? Maybe he should go back and do his homework.
 
This is Serious

I believe that Gov Ritter will sign a new AWB bill in a heartbeat. I'm contacting Rocky Mountain Gun Owners to see if a response is being written.

The first sentence of the Editorial really means:

"Matthew Murray has provided 'us' (the elites) another excuse to trample the rights of the people."

I'm having a real hard time digesting this morning's breakfast...... :mad:
 
By now we should know that the mostly urban mass media write both news articles and editorials to support their agenda for the country, which is left-wing and anti-gun. Never, ever - do they let facts and truth get in the way.

I doubt there is anything we can do to change this, but we don't have to support them with subscriptions, and we don't have to do business with their advertisers. In both cases we can tell them why.
 
The socialist gun grabbers are in a panic because one armed citzen has just called BS on all their arguments for implementing their agenda to turn us all into serfs. Time for a full on assault. :cuss:
 
I believe that Gov Ritter will sign a new AWB bill in a heartbeat.
Considering the fact that he's one of the architects of the Denver AWB, I'm surprised we haven't seen him and his little lap dog John Morse on TV blathering about taking more of our rights away.
 
I wish anti's would do more research before writing letters to the editor. Comments such as…
Such extraordinary firepower is not meant for hunting animals or target shooting.
Only makes them look stupid. Most states do not allow the standard caliber these guns use for deer precisely because they are not powerful enough.
 
The socialist gun grabbers are in a panic because one armed citzen has just called BS on all their arguments for implementing their agenda to turn us all into serfs. Time for a full on assault.

They're just paving the way for Mrs. Snopes Clinton's executive orders.
 
Comments such as…

Quote:
Such extraordinary firepower is not meant for hunting animals or target shooting.

Only makes them look stupid. Most states do not allow the standard caliber these guns use for deer precisely because they are not powerful enough.
They are not writing this stuff to convince you. They are writing it to convence other people who do not know whether what they say is true or not (but feels good to them).
 
Heaven help us the day they figure out a .223 is basically a .22 (BAN THE .22s, THEY ARE ASSAULT RIFLE ROUNDS) and that our hunting cartridges do exponentially more damage (BAN ALL HUNTING ROUNDS). And if they ever figure out what a shotgun slug really is, well we are just up the creek, aren't we?
 
The writer is quite misinformed and needs to study the literature. The AWB was found to have no noticeable effect on any crime index by a massive study done by antigunners funded by the DOJ.

Their point was that the existing stock of weapons and complete substitution by weapons of equal efficacy but without some cosmetic features handled the legal and criminal demand for semiauto military derivative weapons.

Thus, they have little knowledge of the real issues or technical nature of the weapons. Not much different from GWB who wanted to renew it.
 
The reality is any and all guns can - and ultimately will - be defined as "assault weapons", by the hoplophobes.

Their current ploy is predicated upon the 'demonic' aspects of most military-pattern rifles; a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol grip, black plastic stock, large magazine, etc. Most casual TV viewers with little or no firearms familarity can recoginze these from Hollywood violence extravaganzas or news clips. IOW they're deliberately framing the 'proof' to stimulate the emotional left brain hemisphere, while avoiding the rational right.

As hoplophiles, if we continue to respond to these innuendos with logic or facts, we'll lose the fight. We need arguments and examples appealing to the left brain hemisphere. I.e. "a man's successful heroic defense of his family with a gun", shooting sports with children having fun and enjoying the competition. (Not for nothing do we almost never see coverage of family events like IPSC, CASS, on the MSM.) It would destroy the hoplophobe's fantasy..... >MW
 
The law didn't ban all semi-automatic guns, only those with multiple assault weapon features.

Yes, because we all know that it hurts so much more to be shot with a gun that has a flash suppressor or a bayonent lug. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I don't know how this writer finds his/her way to work every day.
 
They also claimed that assault weapons were not a danger to the public — you know the argument: guns don't kill people, people kill people. True, but they need the guns to do it.

This has to be the most idiotic quote in the entire piece. I guess nobody told them that more people are killed with blunt objects/hands and feet than all rifles combined. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top