Replies

"Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by the sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true."
So CNN made the mistake of saying the banned gunned are more dangerous than unbanned guns - why is this a good thing in trying to get the AWB reversed? In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them? I wonder if that is what the NRA was trying to prove - strange thought.

In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them? I wonder if that is what the NRA was trying to prove - strange thought.

I agree. As a corrollary, the NRA says that only 1-2% of guns used in a crime are "assault rifles", so they shouldn't be banned. By that logic, handguns should be banned, since they are used much more often than "assault weapons" in crime.

So CNN made the mistake of saying the banned gunned are more dangerous than unbanned guns - why is this a good thing in trying to get the AWB reversed? In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them? I wonder if that is what the NRA was trying to prove - strange thought.

Most people in the U.S. don't know about firearms. Thus, they think due to the gun-grabbers' willing accomplices in the media that the 1994 Crime (of a) Bill bans fully-automatic firearms. Those of us who are firearms enthusiasts know this to be false; that the 1994 law only bans firearms based on their appearance and not functional characteristics. The Great Unwashed don't, though, and thus they supported the ban and probably will support its renewal.

The point they're trying to make is that the banned firearms are no different functionally from firearms with which most voters have no problem. Therefore, the ban should sunset.

(The other option, of course, is to ban all of them, and that will not fly.)

Once this ban is in the /dev/null of history, then we can start to work on educating the majority of voters, to the point where a roll-back of other laws is possible. Remember, politics is the art of the possible, and a repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act is not possible given the current political climate. One step at a time, though, and we'll see progress.

In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them?

The goal is to ban all types of guns, and prevent citizens from having any means of destruction available at all. Of course, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to put the power to destroy a tyrannical government into the hands of the people. (This must be why some politicians are so eager to remove that power, little by little.)

So CNN made the mistake of saying the banned gunned are more dangerous than unbanned guns - why is this a good thing in trying to get the AWB reversed? In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them?

Personally, I strongly urge them to try. It will finally bring about the public debate to settle the issue once and for all... one way or another. This nickel-and-dime crap got old about 20 years ago.

"So CNN made the mistake of saying the banned gunned are more dangerous than unbanned guns"

You are being deliberately obtuse. CNN lied (deliberately or otherwise) in indicating that fully automatic weapons were being prohibited by the 1994 ban.

"In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them?"

Because people have a right and I would even argue, an obligation, to defend themselves. These weapons are an effective and reasonably safe means of defense. To deny people the means of defense is not just legally wrong (as in the 2nd Amendment), but morally bankrupt as well.

In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them?

Why ban any of them? They are only dangerous to the innocent when misused, just like chainsaws and ladders. And these are the exact type of weapons that were meant to be safeguarded by the 2nd Amendment...chainsaws and ladders do not enjoy such protection.

Are you a gun owner or familiar with guns?

What this AWB did was restrict your freedom (and mine) to buy guns of our choice based solely on their appearance. Not lethality, appearance. One (out of 5 or 6) characteristic, good. 2 characteristics, bad.

Those who didn't turn in(or remove the banned items) those banned weapons are now criminals. The gun grabbers are already trying to not only extend, but EXPAND the ban. What is legal today is illegal tomorrow.

Does this make sense at all?

What do you own that the government might decide is bad?

No, what the NRA implied perfectly is if you want to know about weapons and legislation, the last place you would get your information is CNN.

What was said in the broadcast or what gun did what is now immaterial.

CNN got busted. They were exposed finally as the liberal liars they are. One of the "call ins" said he doesn't have a gun, won't own one, isn't a member of the NRA but he's making sure all of his friends are watching this controvery unfold. It's a major disaster for CNN and in my opinion, much worse than a writer not knowing which way a house points to a field such as what was written in the New York Times.

So CNN made the mistake of saying the banned gunned are more dangerous than unbanned guns - why is this a good thing in trying to get the AWB reversed? In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them? I wonder if that is what the NRA was trying to prove - strange thought.

If you want to see a firearm that is very powerful, take a took at your grandfather's hunting rifle(long distance) or a 12 gauge shotgun(short distance)

They've been around for over 100 years.