Posted on 04/29/2003 8:30:15 AM PDT by jjm2111
President Bush has announced that he supports a federal ban on assault weapons. His administration, therefore, is likely to renew the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban that is set to expire before the end of Bush's term.
Members of the National Rifle Association and other gun-advocate groups, however, have expressed dismay. Some went so far as to threaten to dump Bush in 2004 and elect someone else if he signs a bill extending the prohibition.
That is entirely their choice. But millions of other people support reasonable federal gun control and believe law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights without keeping and trading assault weapons designed for nothing more than killing a lot of people in a short amount of time.
The Post strongly supports the president's decision to stay with a reasonable measure that makes sense and thus continue to control such weapons.
Since 1994, domestic gun manufacturers have been required to cease production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds, except for military or police use. Imports of such weapons already are banned under administrative rules signed by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Assault weapons and clips manufactured before 1994 are "grandfathered" in and can still be possessed and sold.
Banned weapons include AK-47s, the Beretta Ar70, Colt AR-15, Uzis and the TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22.
An AK-47 rifle was used in the recent killing of a 15-year-old boy and wounding of three teenage girls when gunmen opened fire on a packed New Orleans school gym. A TEC-9 was used in the Columbine High School massacre.
Many Second Amendment defenders argue that, while our country is under the threat of terrorist attacks and engaged in war, American citizens should be able to arm themselves with assault weapons. This logic escapes us.
The weapons ban was put into place to save us from ourselves, if you will. It is designed to keep weapons with unusual firepower off the streets so that police won't be outgunned and to help reduce the number of innocent victims in the line of fire when someone decides to shoot up a school or a workplace.
As for fighting terrorism, several branches of the military and law enforcement are assigned to do that. Police also have enhanced firepower to protect the masses. There is no reason to now arm citizens with assault weapons to fight this enemy.
Let's be reasonable. An assault-weapons ban is not an attack on the right to bear arms. It's a reasonable gun-control measure that deserves renewal because there is no good reason for the average citizen to possess such firepower.
Thanks to rellinpank for pointing this out to me.
I'll just say this. There is little difference between these and a Remington 7400 'hunting rifle', except to say that the 7400 is more powerful.
Yet another liberal idiot who doesn't understand the plain meaning of "shall not be infringed. It doesn't say "removed" or "violated" it says "infringed". Any restrictions as to type of arms, method of bearing, etc, is an infringement. You could look it up, although it would be best to us a late 18th or early 19th century dictionary to do so.
Besides the AW ban is just "feel good" legislation, with no evidence that it has stopped even one murder or stopped one rampage, or even reduced the severity of the few that do occur from time to time.
What is really amazing is that liberals not only sing the same tune on this issue, but that they don't realize that the general public has already figured out its BS.
Sometimes it really is a shame that gross stupidity is not a crime for pundits.
What else do we expect from the Denver (Com)Post though...
"A 1999 National Institute of Justice analysis of several crime reports found a fraction of pre-1994 handgun crimes between less than 1 percent and 8 percent -- involved semi-automatic weapons. The NIJ report estimated that the 1994 ban contributed to a 6.7 (percent) drop in crime from 1994-1996."
Despite that, I'm in favor of letting the AWB expire.
It is not just a threat. It is a reality.
In other words, so the government and the criminals will have an overwhelming monopoly on force.
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.