Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 5/16/2001 5:08:41 AM EST
The Los Angeles Times Wednesday, May 16, 2001 Think Outside the NRA Box Editorial It's hard to argue with the underlying goal of the gun plan that President Bush announced this week: to hammer criminals with the full force of federal law. But no one should be surprised that his proposal bears a striking resemblance to the plan the National Rifle Assn. supports. Even a gung-ho NRA member who truly believes that such an approach is all it will take to slow the gun-related death rate would be well advised to look at reported problems with the Richmond, Va., project upon which the Bush plan is based. The president wants to spend $15 million to hire 113 more assistant U.S. attorneys to prosecute gun charges and an additional $550 million over two years to help states crack down on gun crimes. His approach is modeled after Project Exile, launched with much fanfare four years ago in Richmond. Project Exile made gun crimes a federal offense and imposed the toughest sentences possible on those convicted of illegal gun possession or use. But an analysis in this week's U.S. News & World Report finds that the vaunted project has had mixed results. During the first year, federal prosecutors in Richmond aggressively targeted every gun offender they could find. But indictments and convictions have fallen off by almost half since 1997, and many suspects are now being released before trial. Federal judges are grumbling over dockets clogged with gun crimes. And federal prisons near Richmond are jammed with felons who would otherwise be locked up in state prisons. Enforcement of existing laws is an important but incomplete solution to gun violence. And it's expensive. In his statement Monday, Bush said nothing about saner, more cost-effective measures to keep gun crimes from happening in the first place. Nothing about closing the loophole allowing buyers at gun shows to evade background checks, nothing about licensing gun owners or limiting purchases. If the Exile approach can be put back on track, it will be a good step forward for a national gun plan. But it won't be enough. If Bush is serious about reducing gun-related crime, he'll need to think outside the NRA box. http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20010516/t000040995.html
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 5:14:49 AM EST
Its amazing the drivel that passes as editorial comment in todays newspaper. That load of crap could have been generated by a six year old. No facts. No stats. No logical progression toward a solution. Just pablum. Its like these guys are on "auto-responder" every time they write a gun piece.
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 5:22:28 AM EST
Well, after all...it is an Editorial. Just some people shooting off their mouths spewing their venom...kinda reminds me of Victorian times... Same sh*t, different epoch.
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 5:40:38 AM EST
If the first offense to plea out are the gun crimes then they will see a decrease in the numbers. I think you have to punish people accordingly. If its an option between banning them or enforcing the current laws - enforce. They should really be enforced anyway. I think Bush is on the right track. Maybe he will let the ban Sunset. He could come out with stats that show that criminals don't use bayonets. If the criminal doesn't use it, why ban it? Anthony
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 6:14:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/16/2001 6:14:16 AM EST by Jewbroni]
Honestly, I can get over the fact that there is pre-ban vs. post-ban rifles...I really can! What I don't and won't soon get over is how impressively [b]unenforced[/b] this Clinton ban has been. Granted, if you commit a crime with an illegal pre-ban, it will be noted and will be charged against you along with your other misfits. But as anyone actually heard of a case where a pre-ban gun was seen at a range/home/etc by an LEO officer and confiscated due to its "illegal" nature? I would rather the fact-based ignorant ban not have gone through in the first place, but Ex Post facto aside, I believe these officers should keep up more with how to defend themselves and others in a combat situations with these weapons, rather than knowing whether that bayonet lug should be there or not. Most cops get a lot of crap for being ignorant about guns...mostly because it's true! Especially here in Alabama, every other officer I have been in encounter with, and there have been a few because I know quite a few personally, is a Barnie Fife in many respects. He does his patrol, he writes up his forms at the office, hangs his hat and goes home...and hell in a perfect world, we wouldn't need "law enforcement" and that would be all they needed to do. But when it comes to the issue of firearms, especially when one of us has a registered, legal SMG, AR15, or other "assault-type" weapon like many here do, they look at it with a suspicious eye and say 'are dem der things legal son?' I think, as a whole (b/c I know 99% of the LEO guys here know exactly what is gun-legal and illegal), law enforcement should put a little more time into their GENERAL firearms knowledge (and *cough* their marksmanship). But when it comes to the '94 Ban, I don't blame any officer out there who doesn't know the difference between a pre-ban and post-ban AR15...because I think it is ridiculous. I have given hundred of dollars to my FOP, and as a donor I would much rather see my money going to good use in buying better equipment and funding training and seeing current laws enforced, rather than gun bans and respective legislation that just adds confusion and frivolousness when most officers would probably rather worry about not getting themselves killed by a firearm (instead of knowing "how legal" that firearm was). We should seriously consider how gun legislation not only affects the homicide count, but also the police force. Like Agabriel said, "if that bayonet lug never really killed anybody in action, then why ban it?" But maybe I've said too much already. [i]Now I don't want to get on a rant here...[/i] - Dennis Miller Jewbroni~
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 6:30:13 AM EST
Just one leo opinion, gun laws since the thirties have been blantantly un-Constitutional. Therefore just the same as jury nullification, unless the weapon is used in a violent crime and it goes to the lab, there is no examination of whether it is legal according to their so called laws when I come into contact with them and their owners. In fact I've made many friends by talking about these weapons when found, and then walking away leaving the person to his own life. I will never forget what his father did to screw gun owners, and now what Bush is doing causes me to wonder what other motives does he have that haven't been brought to light.
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 6:42:09 AM EST
My question is, what are these attorneys going to do in their slow times? My guess would be to push for more stupid laws making it harder for honest people like the NRA and folk like us that do this for a hobby to obtain the firearms that we enjoy not stop people from commiting crimes with guns. Chances are, a guy that is going to rob a store tonight didn't get his gun from the gun show..... These people kill me how stupid they think.
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 7:06:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By agabriel: >>I think Bush is on the right track. Maybe he will let the ban Sunset. And pigs might fly. In 2004 he'll be worrying about re-election, and won't want to rock the boat. >>He could come out with stats that show that criminals don't use bayonets. If the criminal >>doesn't use it, why ban it? Because the whining soccer moms are AFRAID....."oooh...get rid of all the icky guns!" Logic is NOT at work with these sheep.
Top Top