Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/9/2004 8:20:32 PM EST
This is one time that I wish I could meet him face to face...



Ken Schram's Commentary: The NRA And Political Weasels

September 9, 2004
By Ken Schram

SEATTLE - Face it, if the NRA had its way, people would be able to own machine guns.

And the more fanatical NRA members would be yammering about how the 2nd Amendment allows it.

At the moment however, all the NRA can do is kill an assault weapons ban that a vast majority of Americans think is necessary and worthwhile.

In fact, most congressional Republicans and Democrats also believe the weapons ban should be extended, but they're political weasels.

They've allowed the NRA to intimidate them into ignoring what the nation needs, in favor of what the NRA wants.

Contrary to popular belief, I support the 2nd Amendment.

What I don't support is the NRA's iron-fisted labeling of every reasonable effort to curb gun violence as a diabolical plot to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

By any and all measures, the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles -- along with magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition -- has had a positive impact in the 10 years since it was passed.

But the NRA doesn't care.

The NRA's fantasy is that extending this particular ban would lead to bans on other guns -- "The Boogeyman will getcha" argument.

The NRA has gone from influencing government, to controlling it.

Some say they can live with that.

But how many others will die because of it?

Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:29:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 9:46:14 PM EST by Scollins]
Here is what I sent to Mr. Sham Schram:

Ken,
I read with a little disgust your "rant" as I call it about the NRA, the 2nd Amendment and the Assault Weapons Ban. I've copied it below in order to make it easier to dissect your commentary. I must say that I've never agreed with any of your commentaries that I happen to catch. But since Komo is not my channel of choice, I'm not exposed to your opinions very often.

September 9, 2004
By Ken Schram

SEATTLE - Face it, if the NRA had its way, people would be able to own machine guns.
Scott: Owning machine guns IS legal in most of the USA, including California, for "average" citizens. It requires filling out the proper paper work and filing it along with $200 to the BATFE. They complete a thorough back ground check with the FBI, and if approved, the "average" citizen may take possession of the machine gun. State laws do vary however. Washington State does not allow private ownership of machine guns, but our neighbors to the south (Oregon) are allowed to own them, and many do.

And the more fanatical NRA members would be yammering about how the 2nd Amendment allows it.
Scott: The 2nd Amendment has never been about hunting or sport shooting, it has been about self defense. Understanding this concept can be quite easy by reading the works of the framers of the Constitution. Many choose to believe that the 2nd Amendment is about the National Guard (created in the 20th Century) and not an individual right held by "the people." I find this notion ludicrous. "The people" of the 2nd Amendment are the same "the people" mentioned in the rest of the Constitution. I guess that stance makes me a "fanatical NRA member."

At the moment however, all the NRA can do is kill an assault weapons ban that a vast majority of Americans think is necessary and worthwhile.
Scott: Please provide a source for this claim. Every online poll I've seen (admittedly not scientific) has the vast majority of America saying the ban SHOULDN'T be extended. Also, the NRA cannot kill the bill, as they bill was written with a sunset clause. The bill is killing itself.

In fact, most congressional Republicans and Democrats also believe the weapons ban should be extended, but they're political weasels.
Scott: Again, please provide a source for this claim. I can think of very few Republicans who support the ban. If they indeed wanted to extend the ban, then they would have the votes to pass it. What could possibly motivate a politician to act in such a manner? If, as you claim, most Americans want the ban extended, why wouldn't their elected officials act on that directive? The reason? Most Americans don't want the ban extended, and most Republicans have no desire to see it extended. It is also obvious that Americans NEVER wanted this ban in the first place. The very next election after the ban was passed saw the biggest loss of power by the Democratic Party in all of history. In Bill Clinton's book, he attributed that loss directly to the passage of the AWB. If most Americans wanted that legislation, why would they "reward" their elected officials with an early retirement? That does not add up.

They've allowed the NRA to intimidate them into ignoring what the nation needs, in favor of what the NRA wants.
Scott: The NRA is nothing more than a political force, much like any other political group. VPC, The Brady Center, PETA, AARP, MoveOn.org and countless other groups are all trying to shape public opinion, all in favor of what their members ask for. The NRA has over 4 million members. The NRA is acting on behalf of those members. You call it "intimidation", we call it "representation." Lastly, you say they have intimidated Congress into ignoring what "the nation needs." What exactly does the nation need according to you? I say it needs less gun control, and MORE criminal control.

Contrary to popular belief, I support the 2nd Amendment.
Scott: For what? Duck hunting, skeet shooting and target practice? Again, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, it is about self defense. As a law-abiding citizen, I should access to any firearm I deem most suitable to defend myself, my family and my home. It so happens that an "assault weapon" is that perfect choice. It has been shown that the bullet fired by an AR15 (.223 Rem) is actually SAFER in a home environment than buckshot or a 9mm bullet in terms of over penetration of walls. If I am forced to defend my life with an AR15 and I miss the target, it is FAR less likely to endanger others in my house or neighborhood.

What I don't support is the NRA's iron-fisted labeling of every reasonable effort to curb gun violence as a diabolical plot to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
Scott: Gun control has never been shown to actual curb gun violence. Even the Department of Justice has issued a report indicating that the AWB has had a neglibile effect on reducing gun violence. In every case of legislation labeled as "gun control", guns HAVE been taken away from law-abiding citizens.

By any and all measures, the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles -- along with magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition -- has had a positive impact in the 10 years since it was passed.
Scott: Please provide a source for this information that is NOT supplied by a political group. A link to VPC, The Brady Center or any group that is admittedly "anti gun" is not an objective source. I would say a government study of the affects of the ban would be objective. Those sources indicate little to no effect on gun violence reduction can be attributed to the AWB. In actuality, the AWB bans only cosmetic features of a rifle. You can go down to Wade's Gun tomorrow and buy a Colt AR15 that was made LAST WEEK. The difference between that rifle and one that is banned? Purely cosmetic. Both shoot exactly the same ammunition, so neither is more powerful than the other. What will the "post ban" rifle be missing that the "pre ban" rifle has? A bayonet lug, a flash suppressor and a threaded barrel. How many crimes have been committed with a bayonet? I can think of none. A flash suppressor disperses the muzzle flash FOR THE SHOOTER to preserve night vision. A threaded barrel? That just makes it easier to put on a different flash suppressor, or maybe even "muzzle brake" that helps control the muzzle. Could you put a silencer on it? Sure, but those are legal to own, even in the state of Washington!

But the NRA doesn't care.
Scott: The NRA DOES care. It cares about the position of the members it represents. Just because you don't believe in that position doesn't mean that the NRA doesn't care. They just don't represent what YOU think is good for the country. They DO represent what I think is good for the country.

The NRA's fantasy is that extending this particular ban would lead to bans on other guns -- "The Boogeyman will getcha" argument.
Scott: The creator of the AWB, Diane Feinstein (D-Ca), indicated that she wants to ban ALL guns, every last one. This is very much a "boogeyman will getcha" scenario. It started in 1934, when the government put severe restrictions on machine guns. It expanded again in 1968 with the Gun Control Act of 1968. In 1986, the Firearms Owners Protection Act was passed, but it also included further restrictions on gun ownership. In 1989, then President Bush created an Executive Order that banned the importation of "assault weapons" from other countries. Then in 1994, we get the Assault Weapon Ban. So there is a clear trend here. Each time, firearms rights have been reduced, and each time it has been deemed "reasonable." Each time it has been said, "We aren't after your hunting arms, we are after the criminals." Each time, the criminals have not been affected at all, but law abiding citizens have been affected severely.
There have also been many states that have passed their own strict gun laws. I find it very interesting that D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and is rampant with crime. I also find it very interesting that Virginia has few restrictions on gun, and they have much lower crime. Yet both are right next to each other. How can D.C. suffer from more gun crime than Virginia, yet have stricter gun laws?


The NRA has gone from influencing government, to controlling it.
Scott: The NRA has, and continues to, represent their membership. If you believe that the NRA controls government, what about the AARP? Do they not fight for senior rights very effectively? Do they not represent their members by lobbying for or against laws they feel are not fair? Are they then also controlling government?

Some say they can live with that.

But how many others will die because of it?
Scott: Very few crimes have been committed with "Assault Weapons" according to statistics provided by the Department of Justice. Many of the anti-gun groups claim the amount of traces done for "assault weapons" has dropped 66%. The BATFE has issued warnings to these groups that there is no correlation between how many traces are conducted to how many weapons are used in crimes. Every weapon that is used in a crime is traced, but not all traced weapons are used in crimes. So using that method by the anti-gun groups is clearly misleading. Also, the VPC, a rabid anti-gun website, has even published information saying the AWB in its current form was worthless. http://www.vpc.org/graphics/AWAnalysisFinal.pdf They claim that many "copycat" assault weapons, while legal" have been readily accessible and abundant since the ban took effect in 1994. So if the weapons have been readily available, and according to their analysis, used in many many crimes, how can the AWB be called "effective" or even "successful?" Yet again, it shows that the AWB has been a dismal failure in trying to curb violence in America. Yet again it shows that criminals, by the very definition, will find ways to circumvent the law. Yet again it shows that only law-abiding Americans have been affected by gun control laws. Last time I checked, law-abiding Americans were not the source of crime and violence in America.

But I guess if it saves just one life, then it must be reasonable, no? Many people die each year drowning in a bucket. Maybe we should ban buckets. I mean, if it saves just one life, then it must be worth it.......

Scott Collins
Newcastle, WA
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:08:40 PM EST
Fuckin' A Scott!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:25:42 PM EST
Outstanding!...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:33:34 PM EST
You took the words right out of my fingers.

Good Job.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:29:36 PM EST
Nice work.

Sorry you have to put up with that shit in Western Wa.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:42:17 PM EST
Great job man!
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 12:03:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 12:29:57 AM EST
Nicely written using logic and facts . I commend your skills . Your a tough act to follow

Too bad the left only understands emotion and manufactured statistics . It's very difficult to
debate an idiot .
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:45:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 4:46:16 AM EST by 2whiskeyP]
Beam me up Scotty!! That was fantastic! I just hope that the SOB read it. I kinda think it got deleted as soon as he realized you were educated in the matter and not talking outta your ass like he was. Someday, maybe they will learn.

Keep up the good work!
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 6:50:07 AM EST
+1

Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:20:46 AM EST
Why doesn't the mainstream media want to get the true facts out. And always calling law abidding gun owners lunatics or wackos.

I am just waiting for all the Bayonetting that is going to happen in September. Btw when was the last time our military fixed bayonets? Vietnam?

We'll said Scott!
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:30:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 8:27:55 AM EST
That my friend is a beautiful, well written response, I appluade you..................
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:54:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 2:58:28 PM EST by Blackgun_Fun]
Mr. Schram –

Like you, I don’t pull any punches and express my opinions the way I see it. I do this freely and without worry about who is going to whine and may have their "feelings" hurt. So please keep this in mind as you read on.

About the only thing more offensive than looking at you for the minute or so of airtime you get each evening is actually listening to what you have to say.

Did you know that Clearacil is for external use only? You must have belted down a shot or two before writing the AWB skit you did the other night.

Believe it or not, we faceless people staring at you on the other side of the screen DO have brains, although anybody that would even watch the channel you infest after your AWB Expiration skit may be in question.

I am not even going to waste my time providing you with the countless FACTS (I am sure your email is already full of them) that clearly show the AWB did nothing but take away the rights of us responsible, law abiding, 2nd Amendment loving people for the last 10 years.

Are you even remotely aware that these “banned” firearms have NEVER in fact been banned from manufacture? The AWB banned cosmetic features and the ”names” of guns deemed too “evil” to own. It also banned the sales of magazines to civilians that hold over 10 rounds in capacity.

The MSSAFCFB (Military Style Semi Automatic Firearm Cosmetic Features Ban) is what the AWB should have been called.

Are you aware that there are literally millions more of these exact same style firearms are now in our great country (less the scary evil cosmetic features) than before the ban? How can you possibly think that things will all of a sudden go to “hell in a hand basket” and “flood the streets with AR15s, AK47s, Uzis…etc. now that these previously” banned” features will now be legal again?

I will put forth an analogy that you may be able to relate with though.

If I could somehow apply the AWB to editorial directors:

1. All male liberal whiny media editorial directors may not have dangerous full facial beards from this day on. (Bayonet lugs)

2. Face powder may not be installed / used at any time to reduce glare and flash from camera lighting on your “mug”(flash hiders)

3. Editorial directors may not speak more than 10 words per commentary (magazines that hold more than 10 rounds)

4. The use of a collapsible and/or adjustable chair may not be used in conjunction with an editorial directors “posterior” (collapsible / adjustable butt stocks)

Don’t you think this sounds kind of silly? Would this not anger you? Don’t you think this would infringe on your right to free speech (among others)? Why would a group of leftist politicians want to ban such features and limit the abilities of editorial directors? The only reason you could probably come up with is that some group has decided that they don’t like how you look, and want to demonize you as a stepping stone to ban editorial directors all together.

I am sure if a “ban” like this was put in place, the “journalists” of the United States would band together and push for the expiration of this seriously flawed, unnecessary, right infringing, ban – and do everything possible to make sure it sunseted away without so much as a whimper.

Although this example I am using is fictional, it is no more absurd than the soon to expire AWB. But...if it were real - I bet you would be pretty darn happy (and lucky) if you had an organization like the NRA fighting for your rights 24/7.

P.S - If you want to make a few extra bucks, call up Kerry’s campaign. It is going to be a very short term job (about 1-1/2 months), but I really believe you are missing out on a great opportunity to finesse your ability to spew baseless facts and out right misinformation to back up your arrogant and ignorant “opinions”.



Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:00:31 PM EST
I wonder if Schram ever personaly responds to his emails?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:23:25 PM EST
I have gotten three responses from him.
Two were for rants that I agreed with, one was for one I didn't.

And the one I disagreed with he was really cool, he didn't come across with an attitude.


Originally Posted By Blackgun_Fun:
I wonder if Schram ever personaly responds to his emails?

Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:48:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I have gotten three responses from him.
Two were for rants that I agreed with, one was for one I didn't.

And the one I disagreed with he was really cool, he didn't come across with an attitude.



Ok...cool. I will remove the childish comments about his painful looks and "Clearacil" before sending it to him. I was just so ticked off when I typed it up I could not resist.

I hate sending emails to media types when you know there is little to no chance of ever hearing back from them.

Thanks KA3B
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:28:54 AM EST
Well done Scott !!!!!
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 6:47:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Blackgun_Fun:
Mr. Schram ?


About the only thing more offensive than looking at you for the minute or so of airtime you get each evening is actually listening to what you have to say.









Damn, you guys are killing me!
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 10:12:40 AM EST
Maybe we should invite Ken to the Buzz Inn and Monroe show sometime...followed by a trip to The Pit!
If it goes well, we'll chip in and get him a 1-year NRA Membership.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:30:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 5:31:37 PM EST by R-32]

Originally Posted By BusMaster007:
Maybe we should invite Ken to the Buzz Inn and Monroe show sometime...followed by a trip to The Pit!
If it goes well, we'll chip in and get him a 1-year NRA Membership.




Ask Super Chicken, I hear that the little bitch he has a "in" with the KOMO news staff!
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:24:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Blackgun_Fun:
I wonder if Schram ever personaly responds to his emails?



I haven't heard a thing back from him. I'm not really surprised either.....
Top Top