WABC Television Bias on AWB and NRA Spokesperson Incompetence

Several mornings ago, I flipped my television to see WABC morning news discussing the sunset of the Assault Rifle Ban. They had a woman police chief and an NRA spokewoman to discuss the pros and cons. As a background video WABC shows the LA bank robbery shootout where two bank robbers were hosing the police with AK-47 automatic weapons, giving the impression that once the AWB is sunset, machineguns would be sold to the public. The police chief stated their standard challenge of why people should own assault rifles that are designed for the military, capable of hosing people and police officers down. Diane Sawyer posed the question to the NRA spokeswoman, who stuttered and tried to explain that assault rifles are actually semi autos and are not machineguns. After spending several minutes explaining the technical difference, Sawyer cut the NRA spokesperson off by stating she was not getting her question anwered. I must of gone nuts, not at the media bias but the incompentance of the NRA. If the spokesperson was smart, she should of taken the WABC video used in the segment as the justification of why people need the right to have the choice to select assualt rifles for self defense illustrated by the LA bank robber video. The robbery occured during the AWB. The robbers with criminal records were able to buy fully automatic AK-47 outlawd by the ban. Citizens could not buy the semiautomatic version. Within minutes the robbers were able to overwhelm the police and held them at bay. For nearly six hours everyone on the street had no police protection. If the robbers in their attempt to escape on foot went berserk and started to break into homes nearby, to sieze hostages, the homeowners if armed with an assualt rifle had a fighting chance of protecting his family and if chosen come out and assist the police. All this would not be possible if the AWB is reinstated. What happen in LA where heavilly armed criminals can appear anywhere in the city, neutralize the police protection is akin to a terrorist attack. Except in a terrorist attack, the attacker will shoot every target they see. Citizens even armed with guns allowed under the AWB will not stand a chance against overwelming firepower. The assault rifle in the hands of lawabiding citizens is the only means one could protect themselves, fellow citizens and help the police.

Several mornings ago, I flipped my television to see WABC morning news discussing the sunset of the Assault Rifle Ban.

They had a woman police chief and an NRA spokewoman to discuss the pros and cons. As a background video WABC shows the LA bank robbery shootout where two bank robbers were hosing the police with AK-47 automatic weapons, giving the impression that once the AWB is sunset, machineguns would be sold to the public.

The police chief stated their standard challenge of why people should own assault rifles that are designed for the military, capable of hosing people and police officers down.

Diane Sawyer posed the question to the NRA spokeswoman, who stuttered and tried to explain that assault rifles are actually semi autos and are not machineguns.

After spending several minutes explaining the technical difference, Sawyer cut the NRA spokesperson off by stating she was not getting her question anwered.

I must of gone nuts, not at the media bias but the incompentance of the NRA.

If the spokesperson was smart, she should of taken the WABC video used in the segment as the justification of why people need the right to have the choice to select assualt rifles for self defense illustrated by the LA bank robber video.

The robbery occured during the AWB.

The robbers with criminal records were able to buy fully automatic AK-47 outlawd by the ban.

Citizens could not buy the semiautomatic version.

Within minutes the robbers were able to overwhelm the police and held them at bay.

For nearly six hours everyone on the street had no police protection.

If the robbers in their attempt to escape on foot went berserk and started to break into homes nearby, to sieze hostages, the homeowners if armed with an assualt rifle had a fighting chance of protecting his family and if chosen come out and assist the police.

All this would not be possible if the AWB is reinstated.

What happen in LA where heavilly armed criminals can appear anywhere in the city, neutralize the police protection is akin to a terrorist attack.

Except in a terrorist attack, the attacker will shoot every target they see.

Citizens even armed with guns allowed under the AWB will not stand a chance against overwelming firepower.

The assault rifle in the hands of lawabiding citizens is the only means one could protect themselves, fellow citizens and help the police.

..."The robbers with criminal records were able to buy fully automatic AK-47 outlawd by the ban"...

Sorry, WRONG!
The thugs illegally converted the MAK-90's to full auto, they did not "buy" them that way.

As to the NRA spokes-gal, she clearly tried to explain the difference in a rational manner, while keeping in mind the fifth grade comprehension level of the average TV viewer.
That was not dramatic, and it undercut the programs bias, so she was cut off before she could finish.

Your only valid point is that the citizens were denied the means to defend themselves if the thugs had decided to take civilian hostages.

I think your anger at the supposed incompetence of the NRA spokeswoman is misplaced.

She got to the heart of the misrepresentation: AWB covers semi-autos only, not machine guns. The North Hollywood Shootout had two body-armoured perps using full-auto weapons, not covered by the ban.

Also, one did not need an assault weapon to stop this carnage. The only long guns the police were issued were shotguns with buckshot! Slugs, at the ranges I observed cameramen shooting footage from, whould have been adquate to "stop" each shooter. It doesn't matter if you're wearing body armour, a 1 oz 12ga. lead slug travelling at ~1000fps will stop you.

Lastly, I can't believe there was no honest citizen in the area who owned a scoped hunting rifle.

There is no reason for these assault weapons. Frankly, I think only nuts, kooks and wackos are for them.

Folks say "well if you ban any sort of gun, then that is the beginning of the road to gov't confiscation of all guns". That is just idiocy. That argument holds as much water with me as when scum lefties say "well, if you ban us from protesting in Central Park, we are effectively denied our rights to free expression, guaranteed by the first amendment"

Every constitutional right is modified by the necessities of the common good. To say otherwise is to speak hogwash. Frankly, I am glad that President Bush has spoken out against these rifles. It is all part and parcel of his pro-life, pro-Christian agenda. Good for him!

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.