Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Assault weapons' ban was a poor crime-fighting tool
The Free Lance-Star ^ | 8/15/2004 | Chris W. Cox

Posted on 08/16/2004 10:46:20 AM PDT by neverdem

You have it exactly backward on the federal "assault-weapon" ban. You claim it is expiring on Sept. 13 due to "political pressure" by its opponents ["Extend the ban," Aug. 9]. To the contrary, federal law requires it to expire.

The "political pressure" being waged is by gun prohibitionists who want the ban renewed and expanded, as shown by your high-pressure editorial in which you compare semi-automatic firearms to "bazookas" and describe people who oppose gun control as "zealots."

Despite the pressure, the ban isn't being renewed because most in Congress know that it imposed irrational restrictions on law-abiding Americans and did not affect criminals. In fact, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the ban in 1996.

Not one shred of evidence has been produced in 10 years to validate this law as a crime-fighting measure. Even the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center admits, "You can't argue with a straight face that the ban has been effective."

The motives of those who pushed the ban a decade ago, and the way that legislators and the public were deceived about it are explained on our clintongunban.com Web site.

The ban's history is interesting, but people should be more immediately concerned about the future. Sens. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy are now co-sponsoring S. 1431, a bill that would effectively ban all hunting and sporting semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine, semi-automatic rifles.

Faced with such assaults on their Second Amendment rights, millions of sportsmen and gun owners across America will be applying true "political pressure" on Election Day.

Chris W. Cox

Fairfax

Chris W. Cox is executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Virginia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: assaultweaponban; awb; banglist; gunprohibition; nra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 08/16/2004 10:46:20 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Joe Brower; Squantos; Travis McGee

That's because the AWB was never meant to fight crime...it was meant to disarm law-abiding American citizens.


2 posted on 08/16/2004 10:49:37 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Liberalism is driven by emotion, not reason. Can any one explain to me the rationale for banning cetain types of semi-automatic rifles purely on the basis of appearance? They're the same as rifles that don't have a military-style look. I think its goes to liberals' contempt of the military as well as their empathy with the plight of the criminal element. When the right of self-defense is outlawed, society becomes more vicious and cruel. But for the Left, its not people's behavior that causes them to shoot people, its the weapons that made them do it.


3 posted on 08/16/2004 10:51:32 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Can any one explain to me the rationale for banning cetain types of semi-automatic rifles purely on the basis of appearance?

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction.  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page A19.

4 posted on 08/16/2004 10:57:19 AM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
S. 1431


THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help
                Contents Display   

GPO's PDF Display Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status Printer Friendly Display - 14,841 bytes.[Help]

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1431 IS

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1431

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 17, 2003

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. CORZINE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SUNSET.

SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISIONS.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.

SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.



THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help

                Contents Display   


5 posted on 08/16/2004 10:58:26 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Well said Rep. Cox. This silly ban is the quintessential symbolism-over-substance politics. Sure, maybe it is completely ineffective, but it makes us feel like we're doing something. </sarcasm>
6 posted on 08/16/2004 11:02:00 AM PDT by tdadams (If there were no problems, politicians would have to invent them... wait, they already do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Orwellian title. It has nothing to do with protecting law enforcement. And its easy enough to get around the ban by modifying or removing prohibited features. The entire proposal is a joke and a waste of taxpayers' money. Not to mention that it guts the 2nd Amendment.


7 posted on 08/16/2004 11:03:02 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
That had better die in committee. If it passes, and Bush has promised to sign it should it reach his desk, then consider the curtain closed on the American Experiment.

Badnarik will get my vote. From alienating so much of his conservative base, Bush will lose the election. And civil war will probably result.

The future just got a lot bleaker. I've already e-mailed my Reps and Senators for all the good it'll do.

8 posted on 08/16/2004 11:03:38 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tdadams

Liberalism is about doing things that make people feel good, not necessarily doing things that make their lives better. This penchant for symbolism is nowhere more in evidence than in the assault weapons ban.


9 posted on 08/16/2004 11:05:17 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Jeff Head

Liberals not only can't provide any real reason, they're not even sincere about the emotional hype over the appearance and features. "Assault weapons" were coined to have some kind of gun to demonize since the liberals knew they couldn't demonize hunting weapons...yet. They were dreamed up by Josh Sugarmann and the Bradys and the VPC as an evil bogeyman, thinking if they can just get these banned, they plan to add guns to the ban until they are all gone. Now they are freaking because they realize if they can't even maintain the AW ban, their chances of banning the rest are about zero.


10 posted on 08/16/2004 11:06:14 AM PDT by Sender (First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Gandhi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

I'll disagree just a bit....the AWB in it's current form was to make "felons" out of law abidding owners by confusing BS aspects of the law. Post ban and pre ban configurations, assembly of a SAW with post or pre ban parts, collaspable stocks on a post ban etc... etc..... One had to have a doctorate in Bullsh*t to understand the AWB law and comply with it. They made it such to push folks to easier to dump em attitude vs trying to walk the wire that the BatFag-E's were enforcing

The AWB didn't really ban but a few NEW firearms like the TEC 9 etc.... Most of the eeeeeevil black firearms continued to be made with a muzzle brake vs a flash supressor, or a thumbhole stock vs a pistol grip confabualtion. Now the BAN was on in states like Kaliporina etc but that was based on the high number of drive by bayonettings no doubt. Bad bayonet lug brought all this upon us !

Only 29 more days I believe till this law is bird cage liner..... Wonder if the manufacturers are gonna have a "sale" on hi cap magazines and such ? I ain't spending a dime on new firearms till I can replenish my combat tupperware and SIG hicap magazines which have endured the 10 years of hard use.....:o)


STAY SAFE JEFF !


11 posted on 08/16/2004 11:06:26 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Badnarik will get my vote. From alienating so much of his conservative base, Bush will lose the election. And civil war will probably result.

I'm afraid I must agree with all of your points.

12 posted on 08/16/2004 11:11:50 AM PDT by AppleButter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

It is tied up in the Judiciary Committe now and will probably stay there.


13 posted on 08/16/2004 11:34:36 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Second Amendment - Commentaries
14 posted on 08/16/2004 11:34:54 AM PDT by PsyOp (John Kerry—a .22 Rimfire Short in a .44 Magnum world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

It sure as hell better. However, this is an election year and this is a big issue for the freedom haters.


15 posted on 08/16/2004 11:36:53 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

GOOD LETTER BUMP. CAUTION: REASON ALERT.


16 posted on 08/16/2004 11:39:11 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Badnarik will get my vote

You're a fool, plain and simple. You know damn well AWB won't make it out of Congress.

Bush said he'll sign it - but he said it because it took an issue out of the hands of the gun grabbers and left them totally naked and defenseless. If Bush knew that the bill had a chance to pass both bodies of Congress he would have said he'd veto it. Now the gun-grabbers can't piss and moan at Bush, and Bush is not obligated to tell Congress to pass AWB - he said he'll sign it - IF IT REACHES HIS DESK. He didn't say he was going to move heaven and earth to get it to his desk.

Again, people continue to underestimate Bush.

.

17 posted on 08/16/2004 11:50:26 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
You know damn well AWB won't make it out of Congress.

In that case, Bush has my vote. How hard is that calculus Einstein? Careful who you run around calling "fool". Did you bother to read what I wrote? Or did you just see "Badnarik" and decide to jump in with both boots?

NEVER trust a politician. Even if they are supposedly on your side. Always have a back-up plan. Michael is mine. Bush EARNS my vote the day after the AWB sunsets.

18 posted on 08/16/2004 11:56:44 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Why should Bush care if the "loyal opposition" pisses itself dry, and moans 'til the cows come home? They are doing damned all to help protect the country, or their constituents, and for Bush to do anything else than tell them to "talk to the hand" is a waste of breath.

I would just like to point out that his daddy is no bud to the NRA, and I am beginning to wonder to just what point GW is his own man.

19 posted on 08/16/2004 12:05:14 PM PDT by jonascord (What is better than the wind at 6 O'Clock on the 600 yard line?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Now the gun-grabbers can't piss and moan at Bush, and Bush is not obligated to tell Congress to pass AWB - he said he'll sign it - IF IT REACHES HIS DESK. He didn't say he was going to move heaven and earth to get it to his desk.

So he's just being a cheap political hack, instead of screwing up some actual courage and principles and telling the gun-grabbers to shove it up their McGreeveys because it's an irretrievably bad idea.

20 posted on 08/16/2004 12:10:06 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson