[FairOpinion]

"Thus gun-controllers demonstrate the fine political art of how to win by repeatedly doing things that don't work. In the rest of the world, that fits the loose definition of insanity -- "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" -- but in Washington, it defines success."

[FreedomCalls]

So why do we keep voting them back in to continue to ban more guns then?

[Imal]

And why does Bush support this nonsensical and unconstitutional assault on Americans masquerading as law?

[Joe Brower]

[Travis McGee]

If gun-controllers were to be consistent, they would drop the fuzzy "assault weapons" label and seek to ban all semiautomatic longarms. This would constitute a clean category of guns for prohibition.

That's what they do in my book a week after the "assault rifle massacre" at the stadium.

[goldstategop]

Yup. The problem with the ban is it is focused on banning selected long semiautomatic guns because of their appearance. Style over substance. The gun banners would love to ban every rifle they could get their hands on but it wouldn't fly with states where hunting and sport shooting are an accepted part of life. So they have be dishonest about what they're trying to get rid of to maintain their political viability.

[Delmarksman]

bump

[Hot Soup]

Kleck's estimate is that less than 2 percent of guns used in crimes were assault weapons, and that assault weapons were used in one of 400 violent crimes overall. This made sense, since few street criminals would want to try to carry on their persons a heavy, conspicuous rifle.

I have read recent articles on FR claiming something like a 5% drop in 'assault weapons" used in crimes since the ban was passed. Can anyone tell me if that is true?

[Tailgunner Joe]

bang!