Keep assault-weapon controls [Barf!]

Denver Post ^ | Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 12:00:00 AM MST | DP Editorial Board

[jjm2111]

The bold-face definitely points out the liberal logic. Nevermind that these are just cosmetic differences from other rifles. Pro AWB ban people beware. They're coming after your hunting sniper rifles next.

Thanks to rellinpank for pointing this out to me.

[jjm2111]

Thanks for the heads-up.

[jjm2111]

Bang!

[jjm2111]

Ping!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...This logic escapes us...

As does all other logic.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...The weapons ban was put into place to save us from ourselves, if you will...

I will not.
What utter nonsense.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...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...

The police are incapable of protecting anyone and have absolutely NO OBLIGATION to do so.

[Dan from Michigan]

What a pile of horsesh*t. I can pick this apart piece by piece if I wanted to.

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.

[omega4179]

Barf

[jjm2111]

As does all other logic. - LOL!

[dljordan]

"protect the masses" ! Now I get it! What Marxist rhetoric. To this clown we're jut "the masses".

[El Gato]

An assault-weapons ban is not an attack on the right to bear arms.

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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"assault weapons designed for nothing more than killing a lot of people in a short amount of time"

Isn't that the point of the second amendment, to deter "lots of (government) people" from trying to attack our liberties?

[Dead Corpse]

A lot of these arguments were shredded yesterday by Republicans in the Minnesota Senate during debates on the CCW bill (which passed and was signed by the Governor BTW).

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...

[robertpaulsen]

"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."

"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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Some went so far as to threaten to dump Bush in 2004 and elect someone else if he signs a bill extending the prohibition.

It is not just a threat. It is a reality.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It is designed to keep weapons with unusual firepower off the streets so that police won't be outgunned

In other words, so the government and the criminals will have an overwhelming monopoly on force.

[dirtboy]

I would put very little credence in a Justice Department study on the 1994 ban conducted by Janet Reno's Justice Department - they are hardly a neutral party.