Posted on 06/02/2003 1:15:30 PM PDT by Deadeye Division
Gun law
Assault-weapons ban should be reauthorized before
expiration in ’04
Monday, June 02, 2003
The potshots already being traded will become fusillades as September 2004 nears. That’s when the federal assault-weapons ban will expire unless lawmakers reauthorize it, which they should.
Critics say the measure, approved in 1994 during the Clinton administration, is mere feel-good legislation for the anti-gun movement, bans weapons that are little used by criminals and, thus, has little effect on crime rates. In their eyes, the ban makes even more slippery the slope leading to prohibition of all guns.
There is some merit to these complaints, except the last one, which is the heart of all the gun lobby’s arguments against gun control. This nation is in far more danger of slipping deeper into gun-related violence than it is of banning all privately owned firearms. Hunters, target-shooters and collectors are in no danger of losing their pastimes because of a federal law that bans 19 specific weapons, large-capacity magazines and weapons with certain combinations of features identified with so-called — and often misnamed — assault weapons.
Yes, the law is flawed and, yes, manufacturers have found ways around it to sell rifles that look and operate very much like the banned weapons but that omit one or more of the specified features, such as a flash hider or pistol grip. Police say the Beltway sniper used such a weapon. Critics of the ban rightly point out that a sniper easily could have used any one of the many other rifles on the market that are not related, even in looks, to assault weapons.
True. But had there been no assaultweapons ban, a criminal such as the sniper legally could have purchased much more firepower. What, then, if such a criminal were cornered by police? Clearly, the potential for death and mayhem increases.
Yes, even before the ban, criminals seldom used such weapons. Even some supporters of the legislation in 1994 said so.
But the point of the law is to limit, as much as possible, access to semiautomatic rifles equipped with largecapacity magazines. These weapons are potentially far more lethal than other rifles and have a far greater likelihood of hitting more people and things beyond the intended target, because of the skill required to rapidly and accurately fire such guns.
For all intents and purposes, the term assault weapon is irrelevant to the law, which, instead of being allowed to expire, should be revised to be even more specific as to rapid-fire capability and magazine capacity and less concerned with cosmetic features.
Machine guns, also not favored by criminals, are highly restricted by law, for obvious reasons. The fact is that semiautomatic rifles with high-capacity magazines approach the lethality of machine guns, and that is reason enough to reauthorize the ban.
The National Rifle Association is fond of saying that current laws should be enforced, rather than others enacted. This is a current law, and one that President Bush has said he would not oppose if Congress reauthorizes it. But the president, well-aware that a much more conservative Congress is likely to let the law expire, has not said he would support efforts to maintain the law.
The NRA and other pro-gun organizations are trading verbal fire with gun-control advocates over the law, each side being intransigent and having little new to offer. But what must be considered is the welfare of the vast majority of Americans, not the minority of agenda-driven advocates.
No one has been harmed by the law and many people may have benefited by these weapons not being easily available. These guns are designed to spew as much lethal force as possible. The difference between them and machine guns is that machine guns will fire as long as their triggers are depressed while semiautomatic weapons require a trigger-pull for each shot, meaning they still are capable of firing several bullets per second.
The greater good of society is served by reauthorizing the law. The pro-gun lobby would do itself and the American people a favor by supporting gun laws and working for better and improved laws, rather than opposing virtually every effort to regulate lethal weapons, based almost solely on a paranoia that the government eventually wants to ban all guns.
This shows the folly of the writer and his/her complete ignorance right here. When confronted with the hard facts that "firepower" is no different, they feign ignorance.
We accepted the "but, we don't know much about guns" defence--ONCE. Now--they are just lying.
Crime rates have been going up, have they?
Sorry, but they've be in decline for some time, now.
Oh, that's what the Second Amendment enumerates. Ok.
Pretty please?
Don't you believe it for a second.
When "they" try to take THAT right away, people will scream "THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!"
To which the gun grabbers will say..."Sorry, but hunting & target shooting are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment".
This is the misconception that the anti-gun agenda uses for "shock-n-awe" on the non-gun owning or middle of the road public...
The fact is that the sniper could have legally purchased and used any number of weapons specifically identified by the 94' crime bill.
-archy-/-
Wow! There is a winning argument if ever I have seen one. Nobody has been harmed AND MAYBE somebody has benefited.
Let's see -- on this basis we could start by outlawing anti-globalization demonstrations. Clearly nobody would be harmed, since most of these diddlebrains haven't a clue what they are demonstrating against anyhow. And MAYBE there will be some benefit from not having our streets littered with filth and our windows broken every time the spirit moves them.
Freedom of speech, you say? Freedom of assembly? Right to petition the government for redress of grievances? What are you talking about? The new test is "will it hurt anyone" and "will it MAYBE benefit someone". Forget about all this outdated constitutional folderol. How marvelously simplistic!
Bull Shiite!
First, he was supposed to have been banned from buying any gun.
Second, he could as easily have bought a pre-ban as a post-ban gun, since the AWB didn't actual BAN any guns (only new production of certain models or any semi-auto with certain cosmetic features). The only difference is that it would've cost more.
Third, the AWB didn't ban "high-capacity" mags, only new production for civilians. You could and still can buy anything you want (sorry Kali and NJ residents), up to 250 rounders for anything that accepts M-16 mags.
Fourth, the Beltway shooters might as well have used bolt-action rifles, since they only fired on shot at a time. In fact, they'd have been better of doing so, as they'd have likely had a scope and fired more accurately.
The whole paragraph highlighted above was total nonsense - which speaks well for the rest of the article.
Where to begin with this idiocy. How about:
I think that all Freepers ought to take the following pledge:
Under no circumstances will I use the meaningless term "Assault Weapon". I recognize that this term was invented by anti-gunners in the press to scare the unknowing. I refuse to play by the Orwellian rules of the Hoplophobe. From now on I will refer to these firearms as:
/Rant
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.