Richmond-Times Assault Weapons Ban Editorial

Richmond Times Dispatch ^ | 06/06/03 | Anonymous Editorial

[Copernicus]

June 06, 2003

Guns & Indians

A review of Times-Dispatch editorials on two subjects in recent years has disclosed certain variations. We should like herewith to make our positions clear.

Guns - specifically assault weapons: We concur generally with President Bush's position in support of a ban on the sale and possession of truly automatic (assault) weapons - e.g., those weapons that fire multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled but once, and keep firing until the trigger is released or the magazine spent.

Revolvers, semi-automatics, rifles, and shotguns for self-defense and hunting, with instant background checks at time of purchase, are one thing. Actual fully automatic assault weapons (as opposed to so-called assault weapons that are not fully automatic) are something else entirely, with little justification for possession by - or sale to - anyone other than the military and law enforcement authorities. What everyday citizen among us needs an assault weapon any more than he needs a machine gun, flame-thrower, bazooka, or tank?

This story can be found at: http://www.timesdispatch.com/editorials/MGB3SENALGD.html

[Copernicus]

This (anonymous) editorial is so completely inaccurate it could have been written by Jayson Blair. But, he signs all his work, so I guess it must be someone else.

[Copernicus]

Posted to *bang_list AND *ccrm

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

I remember when the Times-Disgrace had a conservative editorial page....

[ActionNewsBill]

What everyday citizen among us needs an assault weapon any more than he needs a machine gun, flame-thrower, bazooka, or tank?

Not sure what his point is here, but here's my response.

What everyday citizen reporter among us needs a word processing computer any more than he needs a fountain pen and inkwell?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Do New York City policemen with machine guns need to be involved in shootouts on the streets?

[Movemout]

I'm sure this author thought (s)he was espousing a conservative position. (S)He botched it badly.

[harpseal]

Guns - specifically assault weapons: We concur generally with President Bush's position in support of a ban on the sale and possession of truly automatic (assault) weapons - e.g., those weapons that fire multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled but once, and keep firing until the trigger is released or the magazine spent.

George W. Bush has not enunciated such a stand regarding civilian ownership of machine guns which are covered under the National Firearms Act which is not up for review

Revolvers, semi-automatics, rifles, and shotguns for self-defense and hunting, with instant background checks at time of purchase, are one thing. Actual fully automatic assault weapons (as opposed to so-called assault weapons that are not fully automatic) are something else entirely,NFA controlled weapons that are machine guns. The only crime ever committed with an NFA registered machine gun legally possessed was done by a police officer. with little justification for possession by - or sale to - anyone other than the military and law enforcement authorities. What everyday citizen among us needs an assault weapon any more than he needs a machine gun, flame-thrower, bazooka, or tank?Since the author above mentioned the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic this sentence must be considered intentional obfuscation.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

If "assault weapons" are just good for killing lots of people, why do police need them?

[RKV]

1) It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. 2)I do in fact need a fully automatic weapon, since it is the standard weapon of our military, and I am of a gender and age which make me eligible for militia service. 3)How can the militia be well-regulated if they cannot buy the standard military weapon? They cannot. Being able to share ammunition and parts in the field (e.g. magazines, bolts) is a requirement, not a "nice to have." 4) A government which comtemplated the use of private naval vessels (Letters of Marque) in its Constitution, certainly may not restrict the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and still maintain a consistent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[Kenton]

Guns - specifically assault weapons: We concur generally with President Bush's position in support of a ban on the sale and possession of truly automatic (assault) weapons - e.g., those weapons that fire multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled but once, and keep firing until the trigger is released or the magazine spent.

It sounds like what this guy is trying to say is that semi-autos are not military weapons and should not be called "assault weapons", and that's an important distinction to be made in the press. I think most of us would agree on that part.

Unfortunately, he is wrong, semi-autos were the target of the AW ban, by people who purposely misled people into thinking that the ban affected military weapons. And now that's what he supports. Basically the 1934 restrictions (taxation actually) on full-autos, not the Feinstein Law.

[Dead Corpse]

"At least once every human should have to run for his life, to teach him that milk does not come from supermarkets, that safety does not come from policemen, that news is not something that happens to other people. "
Source: Jake in Number of the Beast. R.A. Heinlein.

There are many people in our government, and our media, that need to experience "running for their life".

[dfrussell]

This appears to be a poorly written article against fully automatic weapons... which is sophistry at best as they have been illegal in the US for quite some time.

One would hope that the mess is intentional rather than just another really sloppy editorial.

[m1911]

"if sovereign grants are deemed the way, then those grants should be accompanied by mandates "

LOL. The author has a different idea of "sovereign" than I do. But I guess as long as it's for their own good, it's ok. </sarcasm>

[m1911]

"We should like herewith to make our positions clear."

I'd say you failed.

[white trash redneck]

As I read the editorial, it sounds to me as if they are advocating a situation status quo ante the AWB. That is, they are opposed to controls on semi-auto weapons, and feel that only full auto weapons should be subject to the AWB.

While this is incrementalism, it is an improvement from the current situation; we can fight the provisions of the 1934 GCA another day.

[BlackbirdSST]

This appears to be a poorly written article against fully automatic weapons... which is sophistry at best as they have been illegal in the US for quite some time.

It is indeed a poorly written article, but, I can go buy a fully automatic weapon any day of the week right here in the good ole US of A, if I'm willing to shell out the buck's and pay the TAX! They are not illegal in the US. Blackbird.

[RKV]

As I recall there are increasing limits on the production of full auto weapons for sale to the non-governmental market. No point in getting an HK MP5SD if you can only get a 10 round magazine. That is where DOJ/BATF is headed. Sure, you have a 2nd Amendment right to own a gun - we just won't let anything other than .22 LR caliber single shot rifles be manufactured, and no handguns at all will be built. They will call it a "safety" law, but it will amount to the same thing as confiscation. We must insist that if a weapon is good for the police or military then it is good for the citizens.

[BlackbirdSST]

Get no argument from me, other than the statement made that full auto weapons are "illegal" in the US is not accurate. I'm not saying it isn't under constant assault. Blackbird.

[RogueIsland]

as they have been illegal in the US for quite some time

Yes and no. In many states you can buy a full auto manufactured before a certain date (I don't remember what date, offhand) as long as you pay a federal tax and jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops. But it might just as well be illegal given the cost and inconvenience.

[El Gato]

which is sophistry at best as they have been illegal in the US for quite some time.

No they are not. A guy formely working in my group had two of them, and a grenade launcher. Highly regulated they are, and in some states, but not Texas, they are indeed illegal for mere citizens to own. But on the federal level they are just higly regulated and taxed. The tax is the "excuse" for the regulation, but now they won't accept the tax on newly manufactured guns (since '86).