Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/4/2004 10:59:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 1:43:24 PM EDT by Hoppy8420]
From the Boston Globe:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assault weapons must be banned -- again
By Jarrett T. Barrios | May 4, 2004
TEN YEARS after landmark legislation banning assault weapons was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president, a Republican Congress and president have killed it. In September, people will once again be able to buy an Uzi or AK-47.
With the federal law's demise, the Commonwealth's own statute will also lapse unless the Legislature passes a new law before September. Massachusetts should extend the assault weapons ban and also close the loophole that allows gun dealers to continue selling semiautomatic assault weapons that were purchased prior to 1994.
It is true that 90 percent of gun-related crimes are committed with ordinary handguns, which are not affected by the assault weapon ban. But according to Attorney General John Ashcroft's statistics, the number of banned weapons traced to crime has decreased by 65.8 percent across the nation from 1995 -- the first full year the ban went into effect -- to 2002.
Mirroring this reduction, the number of police officers killed by semiautomatic assault weapons has fallen precipitously since 1995. Perhaps that is why every major police organization in the country supported the effort to renew the federal assault weapons ban. And why the State Police Association of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association are on the front line in lobbying for Massachusetts to extend the assault weapons ban and close the pre-1994 loophole.
Police on the front lines know what it means to be outgunned. And as much as opponents of this legislation keep saying that there is no difference between assault weapons and other types of guns, police know there is a major difference between a handgun and a Tec-9 (used in the massacre at Columbine High School), Mac-10, or AR-15 sniper rifle.
Let's be clear. Semiautomatic assault weapons have no self-protection purpose. Unlike rifles and other recreational firearms, they have no sporting purpose. The constitutional right to own guns has never been found to extend to military-designed weapons of mass destruction.
The National Rifle Association and its allies say the assault weapons ban is ineffective. That's what they said about Brady background checks. That's what they said about banning cop-killer bullets that can pierce body armor. That's what they said about trigger locks that save children's lives. That's what they said about closing the legal loophole that lets criminals buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing background checks. That's what they said about banning high-capacity ammunition feeding clips that can hold 30 rounds per clip. They were wrong about each one of these gun safety laws, and they are wrong now.
The Legislature should look at the facts and set aside political agendas. This debate is about public safety. A bill in the Senate protects gun rights and provides a 90-day grace period for applicants renewing their firearms identification card. It draws the proper line between what is acceptable and what is not under the Second Amendment.
The bill makes permanent the ban on selling or purchasing assault weapons in Massachusetts. It also closes the loophole that allows gun dealers to resell these firearms if originally purchased prior to 1994. It was an AK-47 purchased under this loophole that Michael McDermott used when he entered Edgewater Technologies in Wakefield in 2000 and killed seven of his fellow employees. Closing this loophole only makes sense: An AK-47 manufactured in 1992 allows a criminal to kill just as effectively as one manufactured in 2002.
In 1998 Massachusetts passed gun safety laws that were tougher than any other state on criminals seeking to own guns. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the state's violent crime rate has declined steadily since 1998 -- from 10 percent above the national average in 1998 to 2 percent below the national average in 2002. In 2002, the murder rate in Massachusetts was less than half the national average -- and the second-lowest of any state in the country with a large urban population.
Extending the assault weapons ban and closing the pre-1994 loophole will not solve crime, nor will it keep all guns out of the hands of criminals. But it will aid law enforcement professionals in reducing the carnage caused by the most deadly weapons sold in Massachusetts.
State Senator Jarrett Barrios is chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This pretty much sums up all the ignorant sound bytes the antis are spewing about "weapons of mass destruction assult weapons". Lets respond with some FACTS, and debunk this crap.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:06:05 AM EDT
Goodness H Crackers!!!!
IS EVERYTHING A LOOPHOLE.



Holy SHIT, I drive below the speedlimit, is that a traffic ticket loophole?


()*&I*%^*(%&&*$*$59 PEOPLE, its call complying with the law
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:26:47 AM EDT
How about a link to respond to?
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:31:18 AM EDT
The ban should be extended ...blah...blah...blah.
AR15 sniper rifles...blah...blah...blah.
30 round clips...blah...blah...blah.
Cop killer bullets...blah...blah...blah.
Gun show loophole...blah...blah...blah
Semiautomatic assault weapons have no self-protection purpose...blah...blah...blah
weapons of mass destruction...blah...blah...blah

And then the Coup de Grace.
Extending the assault weapons ban and closing the pre-1994 loophole will not solve crime, nor will it keep all guns out of the hands of criminals.

What an asswipe!
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:42:42 AM EDT
Where the hell did he get his "statistics?"

Linky?
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:47:26 AM EDT
Aw, jeez, not this crap again!!!
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:47:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sherm8404:
Where the hell did he get his "statistics?"

Linky?



Sounds like "junk science" to me. Likely there was already an existing downward trend in violent crime, and they are just trying to take credit for it.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:48:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 12:04:48 PM EDT by Hoppy8420]

Originally Posted By DonS:
How about a link to respond to?


Here's the article.
www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/04/assault_weapons_must_be_banned____again/

The boston globe is www.boston.com

edited to add: thanks NewbHunter

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 12:00:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 12:01:39 PM EDT by NewbHunter]

Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:

Originally Posted By DonS:
How about a link to respond to?


Here's the article.
www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/04/assault_weapons_must_be_banned____again/

The boston globe is www.boston.com

edited to add: someone show me how to hotlink this.

Hoppy8420



Link made hot

Next time you just put the link between these: <url> link goes here </url> (EXCEPT use the "[" and "]"symbol instead of the "<" and ">" symbol around the "url" and "/url")
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 12:06:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By sherm8404:
Where the hell did he get his "statistics?"

Linky?



Sounds like "junk science" to me. Likely there was already an existing downward trend in violent crime, and they are just trying to take credit for it.


Most of it sounds made up to me. Is it true that EVERY Police Dept wnats a renewal of the ban?
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 12:06:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 12:08:02 PM EDT by Hoppy8420]
Oops, double tap We really need the delete function back.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 12:07:44 PM EDT
Judging by the plethorah of these similarly written shitstain articles, it looks like the VPC has been sending out press releases. Now is the time for the NRA to counter this shiznit.

Link Posted: 5/4/2004 1:08:45 PM EDT
Hows this for a reply emailed to his office?

Jarrett T. Barrios

After reading the article in the Boston Globe titled Assault Weepons Ban Must Be Renewed Again, I have found it interesting how the people we LET run our government can be so ignorant to the FACTS. The assault weapons ban does nothing and did nothing to prevent, or stop these weapons being used, bought, or made. The ban simply banned FEATURES of these firearms. When was the last time a Bayonet was used to kill someone?? The bayonet lug is a FEATURE part of the ban. Why is it that a telescopeing stock is ILLEGAL on a AR-15 or like weapon even if the weapons overall length meets the 26" federal requirment. An AR-15 with a collapsible stock fully collapsed is still over 30" long, longer then the federal requirment and impossible to conceal , BUT desk jockies like you know little about what you are writeing.

The assault weapons ban did nothing to stop rifles from being made, it just stopped these features from being added. There have been more of these weapons made and sold LEGALLY during the course of the ban then there were before the ban was enacted. Why are these facts never seen? All the ban did was make people want the weapons more. Even though there have been MILLIONS of sales of these types of weapons during the course of the ban, the whole 10 years, our government states the crime rate has dropped with the banning of these weapons??? I find this interesting !!!! These rifles labled as bullet hoses by someone who knows nothing about firearms, are NOT fully-automatic guns. They only fire ONE bullet with each pull of the trigger. They are NO different other than LOOKS than a semi-automatic rifle sold by Walmart.

Your article named a couple firearms such as the AK-47, UZI, Tech 9, and the AR-15 as haveing no purpose. You state semi automatic guns have no purpose unlike hunting rifles but you FAIL to get facts supporting you statement. HUNTING rifles ARE semi-automatics !!! Makes ya go Hmmmm dont it? I have seen guys fire LEVER ACTION cowboy rifles as fast as someone fireing an AR-15, I guess we should outlaw those too because the guy can move his finger and hand too fast. All of our government officials need to know what there talking about before the start spewing off at the mouth over topics thay cannot support. Would be nice to see some truth from our politicians instaed of false facts.

I guess im just tired of our government walking on our rights to own firearms, rights to free speach. You know the ban will not reduce crime, you know it will NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals because you said so yourself. It only affects law abideing citizens! When will you and the rest of our goverment stand up for your citizens rights, and stop them from being taken????

Sincerly,
Robert D. --- Ohio
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 1:20:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By viper5194:
Hows this for a reply emailed to his office?

Jarrett T. Barrios

After reading the article in the Boston Globe titled Assault Weepons Ban Must Be Renewed Again, I have found it interesting how the people we LET run our government can be so ignorant to the FACTS. The assault weapons ban does nothing and did nothing to prevent, or stop these weapons being used, bought, or made. The ban simply banned FEATURES of these firearms. When was the last time a Bayonet was used to kill someone?? The bayonet lug is a FEATURE part of the ban. Why is it that a telescopeing stock is ILLEGAL on a AR-15 or like weapon even if the weapons overall length meets the 26" federal requirment. An AR-15 with a collapsible stock fully collapsed is still over 30" long, longer then the federal requirment and impossible to conceal , BUT desk jockies like you know little about what you are writeing.

The assault weapons ban did nothing to stop rifles from being made, it just stopped these features from being added. There have been more of these weapons made and sold LEGALLY during the course of the ban then there were before the ban was enacted. Why are these facts never seen? All the ban did was make people want the weapons more. Even though there have been MILLIONS of sales of these types of weapons during the course of the ban, the whole 10 years, our government states the crime rate has dropped with the banning of these weapons??? I find this interesting !!!! These rifles labled as bullet hoses by someone who knows nothing about firearms, are NOT fully-automatic guns. They only fire ONE bullet with each pull of the trigger. They are NO different other than LOOKS than a semi-automatic rifle sold by Walmart.

Your article named a couple firearms such as the AK-47, UZI, Tech 9, and the AR-15 as haveing no purpose. You state semi automatic guns have no purpose unlike hunting rifles but you FAIL to get facts supporting you statement. HUNTING rifles ARE semi-automatics !!! Makes ya go Hmmmm dont it? I have seen guys fire LEVER ACTION cowboy rifles as fast as someone fireing an AR-15, I guess we should outlaw those too because the guy can move his finger and hand too fast. All of our government officials need to know what there talking about before the start spewing off at the mouth over topics thay cannot support. Would be nice to see some truth from our politicians instaed of false facts.

I guess im just tired of our government walking on our rights to own firearms, rights to free speach. You know the ban will not reduce crime, you know it will NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals because you said so yourself. It only affects law abideing citizens! When will you and the rest of our goverment stand up for your citizens rights, and stop them from being taken????

Sincerly,
Robert D. --- Ohio



Nice job!
Is the lever action thing true? can I use that in my response?
I'm sending my response to the paper. Hopefully I'll be able to undo any effect this crap has had on people (if they print it).

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 1:25:21 PM EDT
Use what ever ya want Just get the truth out.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 1:28:50 PM EDT
Ever notice how every anti uses the same, tired, worn-out bullshit in their arguments? I mean, it's nearly word-for-word. The two evil guns they incessantly mention are UZIs and AK-47s.

To top it all off, those two firearms AREN'T EVEN COVERED BY THE AWB!!
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 2:49:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 2:50:36 PM EDT by Hoppy8420]
Time for some critical thinking. Hope this gives you some ideas for your reply.


Assault weapons must be banned -- again
By Jarrett T. Barrios | May 4, 2004
TEN YEARS after landmark legislation banning assault weapons was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president, a Republican Congress and president have killed it. In September, people will once again be able to buy an Uzi or AK-47.


WARNING WARNING: begins with partisan jabs!

With the federal law's demise, the Commonwealth's own statute will also lapse unless the Legislature passes a new law before September. Massachusetts should extend the assault weapons ban and also close the loophole that allows gun dealers to continue selling semiautomatic assault weapons that were purchased prior to 1994.

everythings a freaking loophole isn't it? ITS NOT A LOOPHOLE, ITS COMPLYING WITH THE LAW!

It is true that 90 percent of gun-related crimes are committed with ordinary handguns, which are not affected by the assault weapon ban.

no it isn't. its more like 99%

But according to Attorney General John Ashcroft's statistics, the number of banned weapons traced to crime has decreased by 65.8 percent across the nation from 1995 -- the first full year the ban went into effect -- to 2002.
Mirroring this reduction, the number of police officers killed by semiautomatic assault weapons has fallen precipitously since 1995.


that may be correct, but those numbers were so amall to begin with that we are entering the realm of statistical insignificance here.

Perhaps that is why every major police organization in the country supported the effort to renew the federal assault weapons ban.

is this true? that was not a rhetorical question. ton of them came out in opposition to the awb because the statistics were so insignificant.

And why the State Police Association of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association are on the front line in lobbying for Massachusetts to extend the assault weapons ban and close the pre-1994 loophole.
loophole this loophole that...

Police on the front lines know what it means to be outgunned. And as much as opponents of this legislation keep saying that there is no difference between assault weapons and other types of guns, police know there is a major difference between a handgun and a Tec-9 (used in the massacre at Columbine High School), Mac-10, or AR-15 sniper rifle.
*sigh* just because a car was used to smuggle drugs does not mean that all models of that car are drug runners. police are twice as likely to be killed with their own weapon as an assault weapon.

Let's be clear. Semiautomatic assault weapons have no self-protection purpose. Unlike rifles and other recreational firearms, they have no sporting purpose. The constitutional right to own guns has never been found to extend to military-designed weapons of mass destruction.
someone tell me the bs flag code. AWs can be used for self defense, competition, recreation... oh, and the 2nd amendment was about military rifles.

The National Rifle Association and its allies say the assault weapons ban is ineffective. That's what they said about Brady background checks. That's what they said about banning cop-killer bullets that can pierce body armor. That's what they said about trigger locks that save children's lives. That's what they said about closing the legal loophole that lets criminals buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing background checks. That's what they said about banning high-capacity ammunition feeding clips that can hold 30 rounds per clip. They were wrong about each one of these gun safety laws, and they are wrong now.
cosmetic bans, absence of enfocement, faulty trigger locks, yet another fucking loophole, criminals statistically fire less than two rounds per violent crime...

The Legislature should look at the facts and set aside political agendas.

yes they should. your facts are shit, and you began with partisan attacks.

This debate is about public safety. A bill in the Senate protects gun rights and provides a 90-day grace period for applicants renewing their firearms identification card. It draws the proper line between what is acceptable and what is not under the Second Amendment.
the 2nd ammendment is about all guns.

The bill makes permanent the ban on selling or purchasing assault weapons in Massachusetts. It also closes the loophole that allows gun dealers to resell these firearms if originally purchased prior to 1994. It was an AK-47 purchased under this loophole that Michael McDermott used when he entered Edgewater Technologies in Wakefield in 2000 and killed seven of his fellow employees. Closing this loophole only makes sense: An AK-47 manufactured in 1992 allows a criminal to kill just as effectively as one manufactured in 2002.
not another ... fuck it, i've been through this already

In 1998 Massachusetts passed gun safety laws that were tougher than any other state on criminals seeking to own guns. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the state's violent crime rate has declined steadily since 1998 -- from 10 percent above the national average in 1998 to 2 percent below the national average in 2002. In 2002, the murder rate in Massachusetts was less than half the national average -- and the second-lowest of any state in the country with a large urban population.
specious reasoning. Those statistics may have already been decreasing, and murder rates are affected by advances in medicine. Someone who lived today may have died yesterday.

Extending the assault weapons ban and closing the pre-1994 loophole will not solve crime, nor will it keep all guns out of the hands of criminals. But it will aid law enforcement professionals in reducing the carnage caused by the most deadly weapons sold in Massachusetts.
State Senator Jarrett Barrios is chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee


no it won't solve crime. calling .25% of fatalities attributed to assault weapons "carnage" is one helluva stretch.

I know i'm being a bit of a post whore, but everyone at the local indoctrination center high school reads that paper and i want to keep the damage as minimal as possible.

hope this gives you some ideas.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 3:05:34 PM EDT
Solid typical liberal argument until he shot his self in the mouth with the closing statement which negated the entire article.

What a putz.

Tj
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 3:32:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 3:33:18 PM EDT by Gewehr1Sammler]

Jarrett T. Barrios

After reading the article in the Boston Globe titled Assault Weepons Ban Must Be Renewed Again, I have found it interesting how the people we LET run our government can be so ignorant to the FACTS. The assault weapons ban does nothing and did nothing to prevent, or stop these weapons being used, bought, or made. The ban simply banned FEATURES of these firearms. When was the last time a Bayonet was used to kill someone?? The bayonet lug is a FEATURE part of the ban. Why is it that a telescopeing stock is ILLEGAL on a AR-15 or like weapon even if the weapons overall length meets the 26" federal requirment. An AR-15 with a collapsible stock fully collapsed is still over 30" long, longer then the federal requirment and impossible to conceal , BUT desk jockies like you know little about what you are writeing.

The assault weapons ban did nothing to stop rifles from being made, it just stopped these features from being added. There have been more of these weapons made and sold LEGALLY during the course of the ban then there were before the ban was enacted. Why are these facts never seen? All the ban did was make people want the weapons more. Even though there have been MILLIONS of sales of these types of weapons during the course of the ban, the whole 10 years, our government states the crime rate has dropped with the banning of these weapons??? I find this interesting !!!! These rifles labled as bullet hoses by someone who knows nothing about firearms, are NOT fully-automatic guns. They only fire ONE bullet with each pull of the trigger. They are NO different other than LOOKS than a semi-automatic rifle sold by Walmart.

Your article named a couple firearms such as the AK-47, UZI, Tech 9, and the AR-15 as haveing no purpose. You state semi automatic guns have no purpose unlike hunting rifles but you FAIL to get facts supporting you statement. HUNTING rifles ARE semi-automatics !!! Makes ya go Hmmmm dont it? I have seen guys fire LEVER ACTION cowboy rifles as fast as someone fireing an AR-15, I guess we should outlaw those too because the guy can move his finger and hand too fast. All of our government officials need to know what there talking about before the start spewing off at the mouth over topics thay cannot support. Would be nice to see some truth from our politicians instaed of false facts.

I guess im just tired of our government walking on our rights to own firearms, rights to free speach. You know the ban will not reduce crime, you know it will NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals because you said so yourself. It only affects law abideing citizens! When will you and the rest of our goverment stand up for your citizens rights, and stop them from being taken????

Sincerly,
Robert D. --- Ohio





Nice response, but you had better spell check that sucker before you send it out. The press would have a field day with your spelling and grammar, and an article with those mistakes would do more harm than good with intellectuals. Pictures of Bubba in his trailer would come to mind.

Just check your overall spelling, and “there” is a place, “their” shows possession, “they’re” is a contraction of they are.

Also don’t say “don’t it” better to say “doesn’t it”

I would drop the double and triple punctuation too: !!!, ???.

Fix that stuff up and it will be a good response.


Link Posted: 5/4/2004 5:05:30 PM EDT
MS word caught most if it. Posted this before i actualy sent it.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 10:12:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:
From the Boston Globe:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assault weapons must be banned -- again
By Jarrett T. Barrios | May 4, 2004
TEN YEARS after landmark legislation banning assault weapons was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president, a Republican Congress and president have killed it.



Actually no one "killed it", the law is simply due to expire.


In September, people will once again be able to buy an Uzi or AK-47.


The expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban will have no effect on making it easier to buy a machine gun or weapons such as an Uzi or AK47. Machineguns, Uzis, and AK47's are tightly regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act which has no expiration date.



{snip}
Police on the front lines know what it means to be outgunned. And as much as opponents of this legislation keep saying that there is no difference between assault weapons and other types of guns, police know there is a major difference between a handgun and a Tec-9 (used in the massacre at Columbine High School), Mac-10, or AR-15 sniper rifle.
Let's be clear. Semiautomatic assault weapons have no self-protection purpose.


Police seem perfectly happy using them for purposes of "self-protection". Why shouldn't your average citizen have the right of self-protection?


Unlike rifles and other recreational firearms, they have no sporting purpose.


So...the Service Rifle matches in which shooters use the AR15 as well as 3 gun Tactical Matches...are not sporting purposes?


The constitutional right to own guns has never been found to extend to military-designed weapons of mass destruction.


This is the first TRUE sentance in this entire article...a rifle, even a machine gun is NOT a weapon of Mass Destruction.


The National Rifle Association and its allies say the assault weapons ban is ineffective.


Ineffective....the federal ban has not reduced the number of homicides committed by bayonets...


That's what they said about Brady background checks.


The Brady Background Check would not have stopped Hinckley from getting a handgun and shooting Sarah Brady's Husband (Jim).

I-N-E-F-F-E-C-T-I-V-E


That's what they said about banning cop-killer bullets that can pierce body armor.



Why Heck..my Great Grandpa's 1903 Springfield can defeat most Body Armor, and this is a 100 year old rifle...don't think it killed any police officers..but it sure did a fine job on the Germans.



That's what they said about trigger locks that save children's lives.


I bet my 15 yr old boy can defeat a trigger lock with nothing more than a hammer and a screw driver


That's what they said about closing the legal loophole that lets criminals buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing background checks.


Got any evidence to back up this claim?



That's what they said about banning high-capacity ammunition feeding clips that can hold 30 rounds per clip.



Hmmmm...well..I haven't seen any clips that can hold 30 rounds...my EnBloc Clip will hold 8, most stripper clips will hold 5 rounds..though the SKS stripper clip holds 10 ...
Sure would like to know where I could get a 30 round stripper clip....



They were wrong about each one of these gun safety laws, and they are wrong now.


So...our per capita homicide rate must be a LOT lower than it was in 1950...before the vast majority of these laws were enacted...



The Legislature should look at the facts and set aside political agendas.


I wholeheartedly Agree..we SHOULD look at FACTS and set aside our political agendas...especially propagandists who like to call themselves..."journalists". Guess they took one too many courses in "creative writing"...


This debate is about public safety.



Indeed...in Switzerland EVERY HOME has a MACHINE gun complete with AMMO issued by the State Government....Switzerland is the SAFEST country in the WORLD.



A bill in the Senate protects gun rights and provides a 90-day grace period for applicants renewing their firearms identification card. It draws the proper line between what is acceptable and what is not under the Second Amendment.


After reading the tripe from this author...it makes me wonder if we should be regulating and licensing "journalists" instead...



The bill makes permanent the ban on selling or purchasing assault weapons in Massachusetts. It also closes the loophole that allows gun dealers to resell these firearms if originally purchased prior to 1994. It was an AK-47 purchased under this loophole that Michael McDermott used when he entered Edgewater Technologies in Wakefield in 2000 and killed seven of his fellow employees.



Michael McDermott never did have an AK-47. AK-47's are very expensive and are tightly regulated by the 1934 NFA.
McDermott had a cheap semi-automatic rifle that "looked like" an AK-47 but wasn't.



Closing this loophole only makes sense: An AK-47 manufactured in 1992 allows a criminal to kill just as effectively as one manufactured in 2002.


Nothing in this article makes any sense..other than the plea to look at FACTS and put aside political agenda's which the author who wrote this editorial clearly isn't doing. In Fact...there are scarcely anything that is actually FACTUAL about his claims on Gun Control.

This Editorial was filled with so many lies, that it was remnescent of PRAVDA when Joseph Stalin was in power.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This pretty much sums up all the ignorant sound bytes the antis are spewing about "weapons of mass destruction assult weapons". Lets respond with some FACTS, and debunk this crap.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 10:56:31 PM EDT

Here's my response. Planning on sending it to the Globe editorial e-mail address, the letters-to-the-editor address, and to Barrios' office as well. I'm a resident of MA, so hopefully they're publish it, but I doubt it as the Globe is a left-wing piece of trash paper. I'm posting this here first for feedback. Will wait for feedback before I send it on it's way.



It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant and/or deceitful politicians are. This is especially true here in Massachusetts when it comes to firearms laws. Senator Jarrett Barrios' article regarding "Assault Weapons Must be Banned Again" highlights how little he knows of the law and how well he can parrot the views of anti-second-amendment groups. Either that or he just enjoys outright lying to his constituents.
Let's get some things straight. First off, the "Republican Congress and president" did not "kill" the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban". The law was passed with a set lifespan of ten years. The law expires in September no matter what. If someone wants to pass another law that duplicates the language but has a permanent lifespan they're welcome to try. But to claim that Republicans are to blame for its expiration does nothing but highlight Senator Barrios' partisanship.
Secondly, the "Assault Weapons Ban" did nothing more than ban a series of "features" on rifles. The ban stipulates that if a rifle may only have two of the following features: pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, folding/collapsible stock. Many rifles already have a pistol grip and a detachable magazine. Flash suppressors direct the flash of the weapon in such a way so that it does not blind the shooter when firing in low-light conditions. Folding/collapsible stocks allow easier storage of the weapon and allow it to be adjusted for shooters with smaller builds. Bayonet lugs allow for the attachment of a bayonet to a rifle. When was the last time someone was killed in a drive-by bayoneting? All of these features are cosmetic in nature.
In short, the Assault Weapons Ban was nothing more than a "feel good law". This is a law that does nothing to stop criminals or to address the causes of crime. It is a law that was made by politicians who wanted to pull a fast one over on the American public to make it look like that they were actually doing something about crime. Due to most of the American public not being very well educated about firearms, they were duped by this law.
The senator goes on to state that these weapons have "no sporting purpose". Tell that to people who compete in shooting matches that are overseen by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The CMP was created by the federal government as a program to teach marksmanship to civilians. Firearms used in CMP matches include "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 and the M-1A. "Sporting purpose" isn't even a valid argument for banning of these weapons anyway as the second amendment has nothing to do with "sporting purposes" or hunting. The claim that these weapons serve no "self-protection" purpose is also untrue. What are military and law-enforcement personnel using these weapons for, if not self-defense? Is the senator trying to tell us that the military and law-enforcement officers have a right to use such weapons for self-defense, but we "commoners" do not?
The senator goes on to use the tragedy of the Edgewater Technologies shooting in 2000 to further his political agenda. Yes, Michael McDermott used a semi-automatic rifle patterned after the AK-47 design. Did it matter if it was a "pre-1994" rifle or a "post-1994" rifle with the cosmetic changes removed? No, it doesn't. He could have killed just as many defenseless people with a shotgun or pistol. The style of firearm had nothing to do with it. Funny how the senator conveniently overlooks the fact that McDermott's FID card that allowed him to legally own these firearms had been expired for some time and yet nothing was done beforehand to confiscate his weapons from him. Once the FID expired, his posession of such weapons was already a violation of the law and yet the law was not enforced.
Finally, Senator Barrios goes on to try to tie Massachusetts' poorly thought-out gun laws to the decline in crime within the state. Quoting statistics is all well and good, but he fails to show that the drop in crime was actually a result of any gun laws enacted. It's known that crime decreases when the economy is doing well. The United States economy, especially in tech-dependent states such as Massachusetts, was doing extremely well from 1998 until the end of 2001. Yet, Senator Barrios continues to attempt to mislead the public through his poor usage of statistics.
In closing, it appears that the senator sums everything up himself at the end of his editorial when he states: "Extending the assault weapons ban and closing the pre-1994 loophole will not solve crime, nor will it keep all guns out of the hands of criminals." Then why bother trampling over the rights of myself and every other law-abiding gun-owner in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Try learning a little something about an issue before trying to pass more "feel-good" laws. Give your constituents some respect and try being truthful with them for a change.

Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:27:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:
From the Boston Globe:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assault weapons must be banned -- again
By Jarrett T. Barrios | May 4, 2004

Let's be clear. Semiautomatic assault weapons have no self-protection purpose.

If this was correct we wouldn't be seeing pictures of the NYPD carrying them on time square New Years Eve, Would we?
Top Top