Assault Weapon Ban Deserves Renewal

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Jim Nicholson, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. If this article pi$$es you off as much as it does me, you can write the editor

    Assault weapons ban deserves renewal

    The political climate is not favorable for this highly explosive issue.

    February 16, 2004

    The assault weapons ban is in trouble, and there's no good reason why it should
    be. Except that this is an election year, and choosing right over wrong is not
    always clear-cut when politics and ferociously entrenched interests are

    Ten years ago, in a rare display of courage, Congress passed a bill that bans
    AK-47s and 18 other semi-automatic, military-style assault wea-pons. These are
    known as the guns of choice of drug dealers and gang thugs. They have been
    described as "cop-killer guns."


    What led Congress to take action 10 years were several high-profile massacres.
    In 1989, Patrick Purdy killed five small children and wounded 29 others at an
    elementary school in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic version of the
    AK-47. In early 1993, four ATF special agents were killed at the Branch Davidian
    compound near Waco, where David Koresh's cult had stockpiled an arsenal of
    assault weapons. Also in 1993, a man killed eight people and wounded six others
    using two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines at a law office in San

    Such masacres led Congress to overcome fierce opposition mounted by the National
    Rifle Association and pass the assault weapons ban, which President Clinton
    signed into law. The law required that domestic gun manufacturers stop
    production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more
    than 10 rounds, except for military or police use. Nineteen different assault
    weapons were banned.

    Now, 10 years later, that law is set to expire in September. That is, unless
    Congress summons the courage to act again. Bills have been introduced to
    re-authorize the ban, but the prospects look iffy in this election year.

    House majority leader Tom DeLay has promised that bills to renew the ban will
    never make it to the floor for a vote. And so far, the issue has not gained much
    traction in the Democratic presidential campaign. Why? Because some party
    operatives fear raising an issue that would serve to energize the very potent
    NRA and its members. Many believe the 1994 ban cost the Democrats control of the
    House, and some believe that Al Gore's pro-gun-control stance cost him the 2000
    presidential election.

    But what was right 10 years ago is still right today. This measure doesn't
    affect traditional guns used in hunting. It doesn't prevent homeowners from
    buying weapons for self-protection. It does prevent drug dealers and gang
    members from buying Rambo-style weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing
    as many people as quickly as possible. Who can argue that a drug dealer or a
    gang member has a Second Amendment right to the Uzi or AK-47 of his choice?

    The timing for re-authorizing the assault weapons ban could not be worse,
    politically. But right is right - even in a presidential and congressional
    election year.,1641,CCCT_840_2658489,00.html
    Jim Nicholson, Feb 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jim Nicholson

    Hans Guest

    I've been waiting for that unconstitutional bill to expire.,1641,CCCT_840_2658489,00.html
    Hans, Feb 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jim Nicholson spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and proclaimed

    Hell yes it pisses me off. It pisses me off that none of the lawmakers at
    the time addressed the real issue at hand.

    Thund3rstruck_N0i, Feb 16, 2004
  4. Jim Nicholson

    anthonyberet Guest

    Just bizarre.......why would a country that's scared shitless of terrorists
    have those types of weapons available for sale???
    anthonyberet, Feb 17, 2004
  5. Jim Nicholson

    Steven Tyler Guest

    Cuz terrorists don't only come from without, they also come from within.
    The 2nd Amendment isn't in place so we can go duck hunting. It's there to
    keep the government in check. There is nothing a government fears more than
    an armed populice.
    Take all of the guns away and government here (in the US) will become like
    that in Mexico. Brutally corrupt (even more than it is now).
    Steven Tyler, Feb 17, 2004
  6. Jim Nicholson

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, Jim Nicholson mused:
    | Assault weapons ban deserves renewal

    Funny. No mention on whether the ban actually reduced death by shooting
    rates in the US. Also, when was the last time you saw your local drug
    dealer in the gun store? ;-)
    mhicaoidh, Feb 17, 2004
  7. Jim Nicholson

    anthonyberet Guest

    Yes I understand that as a comon reason for gun liberalism in the USA.
    However, how do you marry it with other countries around the world that have
    gun controls but also have liberal governments?
    The obvious thing that is always pointed out about gun freedom is that they
    are then in the hands of criminals -and perhaps now terrorists too...
    anthonyberet, Feb 17, 2004
  8. If the criminals have them, the ban didn't do much good, did it?
    Legal or not, the criminals will always find guns. Then the rest of
    us will have no protection against them.

    And don't suggest calling the police. The nearest police are 20 miles
    away. They would get here just in time to put up the yellow tape and
    call the coroner.
    PowerPost2000, Feb 17, 2004
  9. Jim Nicholson

    Hans Guest

    I 100% agree with PowerPost2000's comments. A gun to a criminal is like a
    hammer to a carpenter. It is the tool of their trade.
    All of the gun legislation in America hasn't deterred crime. Washington DC
    has an absolute (an completely illegal/unconstitutional) BAN on handguns.
    Yet, DC has the highest crime rate in the nation.
    Studies have been shown that in cities/states that have liberal gun laws,
    allowing citizens freedom to carry a personal firearm on their person, the
    crime rates always go down.
    That criminal might think twice about robbing Joe Blow at the ATM if he
    might have a .38 in his pocket.

    From a personal experience. After moving into my new home, one night around
    2:30 AM I had a person violenlty knocking on my front door and ringing my
    doorbell. This was very odd, and we were in a completely new neighborhood.
    My wife and I were very alarmed and nervous... that is, until I retrieved my
    ..357 magnum revolver. Then we patiently, and with much relaxation, waited
    it out. Oh how that gun brought me comfort in the late of the night.

    Gun laws only hinder LAW-ABIDING people. Criminals, by definition, do not
    obey the laws and can always find guns on the black market.
    Hans, Feb 17, 2004
  10. Jim Nicholson

    Sano Guest

    Oh yeah. Good point.

    Uh, I guess you haven't looked at Australian crime stats since their gun
    ban implementation.
    Sano, Feb 17, 2004
  11. Jim Nicholson

    Hans Guest

    Good points. Not only that, but now they want to ban the .50 caliber rifle.
    This is a high powered and expensive weapon. Let me ask, how often do you
    see a .50 caliber rifle used in a crime? You DON'T. The politicians are
    just freaked because this weapon can be fired from over 1,000 meters away
    and go right through bulletproof glass (i.e. their limozines).
    Now, that's what I call keeping the government in check!

    If they have no fear of retribution, the will have free reign to defy the
    will of the People and the Law.

    By the way, aren't personal firearms banned in England? We all know how bad
    the crime is in London. And all of those CCTV cameras recording your every
    move... how does it feel that have the government monitoring your moves, but
    not doing anything about their horrible crime rate?

    Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens deters crime, pure and simple.
    Ask any burglar. Trust me, the Burglars Union is voting for gun control.
    Hans, Feb 17, 2004
  12. PowerPost2000 spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and proclaimed
    Actually, in CA around 10 years ago, the courts ruled that the police do
    not have to answer any call they don't want to, or even show up in a
    specific amount of time. If anyone wants, I will try to find info on

    Thund3rstruck_N0i, Feb 17, 2004
  13. I remember reading that somewhere. Maybe Guns &Ammo?
    PowerPost2000, Feb 18, 2004
  14. PowerPost2000 spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and proclaimed
    I think it was more mainstream than that, because I do not normally read
    that magazine. :)

    Thund3rstruck_N0i, Feb 18, 2004
    Misa Mirkovic, Feb 21, 2004
    Misa Mirkovic, Feb 21, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.