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

To: RJayneJ
i remain in total ignorance. What did the CNN story say? What did the retraction say? Any links to either?
9 posted on 05/19/2003 7:14:44 PM PDT by Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Wisconsin
Here is the retraction.

Taken from GonzoSKS at sksboards.com:

O'BRIEN: Welcome back. The White House recently restated President Bush's support for renewing a ban on certain semiautomatic weapons. The ban has been in place since '94, but is set to expire next year, unless Congress renews it.

Recent signals that the GOP leadership might not bring the renewal up for consideration and will let the ban expire have rekindled the fires of that debate. On this program on Thursday of last week, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We reviewed that demonstration, and one on another CNN program, and decided that a more detailed report could better explain this complex issue.

Here is CNN's John Zarrella.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is a semiautomatic firearm. It instantly self-loads and fires one bullet for each trigger pull. The 1994 Crime Control Act says it is unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. The law defines a semiautomatic assault weapon by name and description, listing 19 specific firearms by name that are illegal.

The law also bans certain rifles, pistols and shotguns by description, as well as large capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The law is very specific. For a semiautomatic rifle to be banned, it must be able to use a detachable magazine and have at least two of the following features: A flash suppressor, a bayonet mount, a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, or a grenade launcher.

Gary Reno (ph), a retired 30-year police officer and assistant chief in Oakland Park, Florida.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's examine the banned weapon.

ZARRELLA: ... explained the difference between a banned AR-15 and its legal clone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Flash suppressor, bayonet log, high capacity magazine, over 10 rounds, pistol grip and a telescoping rear stock.

ZARRELLA (on camera): And the legal weapon doesn't have those features, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doesn't have any of those features. Does not have a flash suppressor, does not have a bayonet log, has a legal 10- round magazine. Does have the pistol grip, but it has no other features so it makes it a legal firearm, and has a solid rear stock.

ZARRELLA (voice-over): Pro-ban advocates say each of these features would make the weapons more deadly, but anti-ban supporters say those features are only cosmetic and don't contribute to and increase in crime. With only one of the listed features, the gun is legal. And without those features, experts say the guns are identical.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's exactly the same gun.

ZARRELLA (on camera): And the same firepower.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Same firepower, same bullet, you have to squeeze the trigger once to make a bullet go down the barrel.

ZARRELLA (voice-over): In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact.

Here is a .223 caliber bullet fired from a banned AR-15 rifle. Now, the legal version of that rifle.

The smaller hole made by the second gun has nothing to do with the gun or ammunition. The shooter just hit the second target more times in the same place.

Both sides cited Justice Department study about the impact of the law as proof of their argument. Those who oppose the ban say the study shows the ban has had no impact on the reduction of crime and that the answer is to enforce the laws already on the books.

WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXEC. VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: What stops crime is every time a violent felon touches a gun, a violent drug dealer, a violent criminal, use the existing federal law, prosecute him 100 percent, confront the criminal directly, and take him off the street and put him in jail.

ZARRELLA: Supporters of the ban instead say the study shows a decline in the amount of crime committed with these weapons.

REP. CAROLYN MCCARTHY (D), NEW YORK: I'm sure the American people do not want to go back to the day of allowing AK-47s back on the streets, or even the newer models that are the Buschmeister (ph) that were used in the D.C. sniping killings last year.

ZARRELLA: Gun control advocates are working with some members of Congress on not only extending the assault weapon ban in 2004, but introducing new legislation to vastly expand the number of weapons banned. Gun advocates and their supporters in Congress argue this and any future bans are an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

John Zarrella, CNN, Miami.
13 posted on 05/19/2003 7:30:20 PM PDT by Bogey78O (check it out... http://freepers.zill.net/users/bogey78o_fr/puppet.swf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Wisconsin
As to the original story it had a Texas cop fire a preban 30 rd AK-47 at a cinder block and at a "bullet proof" vest.

It easily penetrated both of them.

Then he pulls out a legal 10 rd AK-47 and misses the cinder blocks BY A MILE!

Then goes onto lecture us about how the 30 rd AK was more powerful and the 10rd AK is too weak to break cinder blocks.

Then to stress the need to keep the SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons ban in place he switches it to full auto and decimates the bricks.

Meanwhile anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of the AK-47 and rifle technology is sitting home aghast at this JBT lying through his teeth.
15 posted on 05/19/2003 7:34:33 PM PDT by Bogey78O (check it out... http://freepers.zill.net/users/bogey78o_fr/puppet.swf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Wisconsin
You can read the missing parts to the story further down the thread. I did not see the original story or demonstration. I saw LaPierre go balistic about the faked demonstration. I generally do not watch CNN and it was by accident that I saw the LaPierre interview.
23 posted on 05/19/2003 8:16:24 PM PDT by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

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