Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/19/2004 10:17:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 10:23:59 AM EST by ishoot2live]
On 9/15/04 I read an editorial in the Portsmouth Herald that was listed among other articles on the AWBSunset web-site. The editorial clearly showed disdain towards the expiration of the AWB, Portsmouth Herald Editorial and it was full of the usual inaccuracies and mistruths, so I wrote a letter to the editor to "clarify" the erroneous statements.

As of 9/19/04 my letter had not been printed, but this one was: AWB Letter to the editor I find it comical that the media will print lies and still insist on printing fictional information even when a source for the truth is presented.

Perhaps if enough of us in the gun community write a letter to the editor regarding this inaccurate editorial, maybe, just maybe one of our letters pointing out the truth will get printed. Portsmouth Herald letters to the editor

Here is my letter as it was sent to the editor:

To the editor:

I have just read your article titled: "There is no logical reason to legalize assault weapons." I would like to clarify a few inaccuracies contained in the article. First, "bayonets" were not covered under the ban - the bayonet "lug" attachment was. Second, "silencers" were never a part of the ban. Silencers, better known as "suppressors" are devices that muffle sound and they are heavily regulated as "Class III" items under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the expiration of the ban.

"Flash suppressors" were specifically listed in the ban, and their function is to redirect the amount of gasses expelled at the muzzle and concentrate them away from the ground, which in turn eliminates dirt from being scattered around the muzzle and the face of the operator. This device also reduces flash and has absolutely nothing to do with covert shooting or officer safety.

Ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds are no more deadly than magazines that hold ten or less. If a madman wants to kill large scores of people one does not have to be a mathematician to realize that there is no difference between using two 15 round magazines or three tens.

After the ban became law so called "assault weapons" were still abundantly avalable in both "pre-ban" and "post ban" configurations. The difference was the cost of "pre-ban" firearms that were banned merely for cosmetic features skyrocketed by thousands of dollars, and "post ban" configurations that were missing a few "cosmetic" features under the ban had lower market values closer to where "pre-ban" firearms were before the ban. The ban had absolutely no effect on the operation, lethality, or rate of fire on either class of firearms. They were both exactly the same before and after the ban.

The Maryland Sniper (John Allen Muhammad) used a "post-ban" rifle that did not contain any features of a banned rifle, and it was perfectly legal under the law. Mr. Mohammed was under a restraining order for domestic violence which prohibited him from legally purchasing the rifle in the first place. All Mr. Muhammed had to do to skirt the Brady Background Check was to purchase a stolen rifle. Which he did (so much for background checks).

The so called "assault weapons" ban was nothing more than warm-and-fuzzy politics and I am glad to see the ban go. Hopefully Congress can now move on to real issues that will truly address Public Safety and Homeland Security.

Joe Nizzari
Las Vegas, Nevada
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 10:35:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By ishoot2live:
On 9/15/04 I read an editorial in the Portsmouth Herald that was listed among other articles on the AWBSunset web-site. The editorial clearly showed disdain towards the expiration of the AWB, Portsmouth Herald Editorial and it was full of the usual inaccuracies and mistruths, so I wrote a letter to the editor to "clarify" the erroneous statements.

As of 9/19/04 my letter had not been printed, but this one was: AWB Letter to the editor I find it comical that the media will print lies and still insist on printing fictional information even when a source for the truth is presented.

Perhaps if enough of us in the gun community write a letter to the editor regarding this inaccurate editorial, maybe, just maybe one of our letters pointing out the truth will get printed. Portsmouth Herald letters to the editor

Here is my letter as it was sent to the editor:

To the editor:

I have just read your article titled: "There is no logical reason to legalize assault weapons." I would like to clarify a few inaccuracies contained in the article. First, "bayonets" were not covered under the ban - the bayonet "lug" attachment was. Second, "silencers" were never a part of the ban. Silencers, better known as "suppressors" are devices that muffle sound and they are heavily regulated as "Class III" items under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the expiration of the ban.

"Flash suppressors" were specifically listed in the ban, and their function is to redirect the amount of gasses expelled at the muzzle and concentrate them away from the ground, which in turn eliminates dirt from being scattered around the muzzle and the face of the operator. This device also reduces flash and has absolutely nothing to do with covert shooting or officer safety.

Ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds are no more deadly than magazines that hold ten or less. If a madman wants to kill large scores of people one does not have to be a mathematician to realize that there is no difference between using two 15 round magazines or three tens.

After the ban became law so called "assault weapons" were still abundantly avalable in both "pre-ban" and "post ban" configurations. The difference was the cost of "pre-ban" firearms that were banned merely for cosmetic features skyrocketed by thousands of dollars, and "post ban" configurations that were missing a few "cosmetic" features under the ban had lower market values closer to where "pre-ban" firearms were before the ban. The ban had absolutely no effect on the operation, lethality, or rate of fire on either class of firearms. They were both exactly the same before and after the ban.

The Maryland Sniper (John Allen Muhammad) used a "post-ban" rifle that did not contain any features of a banned rifle, and it was perfectly legal under the law. Mr. Mohammed was under a restraining order for domestic violence which prohibited him from legally purchasing the rifle in the first place. All Mr. Muhammed had to do to skirt the Brady Background Check was to purchase a stolen rifle. Which he did (so much for background checks).

The so called "assault weapons" ban was nothing more than warm-and-fuzzy politics and I am glad to see the ban go. Hopefully Congress can now move on to real issues that will truly address Public Safety and Homeland Security.

Joe Nizzari
Las Vegas, Nevada



You are incoorect on at least one point

Supressors were illegal to attach to postban weapons, as they were considered 'flash hiders' (for obvious reasons)...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 11:05:33 AM EST
Dave_A wrote: You are incoorect on at least one point Supressors were illegal to attach to postban weapons, as they were considered 'flash hiders' (for obvious reasons)...

Dave, where am I incorrect? The editorial stated: "The law also banned certain silencers and other devices to shield the flash of rifle fire. With the lapse of the ban, "registered silencers can now be attached to semiautomatic rifles and pistols without creating a prohibited semiautomatic assault weapon," the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms explains."

Silencers (suppressors) had nothing to do with the expiration of the ban, and I stated that in my letter. I still would like to know where I am incorrect.

Thanks....
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:02:14 PM EST
to expect the media to tell the truth, is to believe in the goodness of man as a universal principal. Any objective observer would tell you, it just is not so.

The media not only has blinders, but has their head so far up their ass, they think they are seeing clearly.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 7:39:59 PM EST
They can never tell the truth because they would immediately lose their political platform.

Sad but true.....
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 3:51:11 AM EST
Portsmouth is a fun town to visit but it's where the fruit and nuts of NH flourish. The paper is a big librag. As for Jane Hoffman from Rye, she's a loudmouth Howard Dean supporter. Whaddya expect?
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 8:22:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
Portsmouth is a fun town to visit but it's where the fruit and nuts of NH flourish. The paper is a big librag. As for Jane Hoffman from Rye, she's a loudmouth Howard Dean supporter. Whaddya expect?



Yea, I got that impression too. All I tried to do was present the truth, but far-left liberals will not acknowledge the truth, even when it is presented with undenialable fact. All they want is someone to blame no matter who it hurts or who it inconveniences. Look at that fat sweathog, Michael Moore. He would rather spew blatant lies through his "lieumentaries" rather than present the truth in a fair and balanced manner.

The Portsmouth Herald printed two more negative AWB letters after I submitted mine, and they contained the same old misinformed rhetoric. One of the letters stated that 80% of the people are in favor of renewing the ban. Sheese, now its 80%? Do I hear 85! How about 90, 95, Going once..... Twice.....

It's all BS and the Herald knows it. I even tried to contact the editor on three occasions and he never returned my calls. See he can't face the truth..... Will it ever end????

Be Safe.
Top Top