Posted: 3/7/2003 7:04:36 PM EDT
|
Don't get your hopes up just yet over Ashcrofts statement regarding the AW ban. The battle for our rights is going to be a tough one. (Note: this petition is directed at organizations which makes it even more troublesom). ****************************************** [red]http://www.bradycampaign.org/downloads/aaaw.pdf[/red] AMERICANS AGAINST ASSAULT WEAPONS We, as Americans Against Assault Weapons, must mobilize a massive campaign so that Congress will renew and strengthen the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. We want to protect our neighborhoods and law enforcement from "Weapons of War" like AK-47s and UZIs. Unless the federal law is reauthorized, it will expire and assault weapons will once again flood our streets. Under the Americans Against Assault Weapons Campaign, gun violence prevention organizations and other allied organizations will work to educate the public, media and elected officials about the danger assault weapons pose to our communities and the need to reauthorize and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban. The federal assault weapons law, passed in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, prohibits the manufacture, sale and importation of new military-style, semi-automatic assault weapons and rapid-fire ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. But the law will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and the President renew it. If the law is not reauthorized, the manufacture and sale of AK-47s, UZIs and other assault weapons along with rapid-fire ammunition magazines will become legal again. Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. Semi-automatic assault weapons can fire up to 6 bullets a second and have devastating firepower when equipped with magazines holding 20, 30 or even 50 rounds of ammunition. One of the guns used in the Columbine High School shooting was the TEC-DC9 assault pistol, a gun designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. If the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby extremists have their way, our neighborhoods will once again be flooded with these combat weapons, threatening both our police and the public. Please sign the pledge below and help us save and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban! ************************************************************************ Please add the undersigned organization to the Americans Against Assault Weapons Campaign. We pledge to support reauthorization of the 1994 federal assault weapons law, with updated provisions consistent with Congress? original intent to prevent manufacturers, importers, and sellers from flooding America?s neighborhoods with large capacity ammunition feeding devices and military-style firearms, such as AK-47s, UZIs and TEC-9s. Signed:_____________________________________________________ Organization Name_______________________________________________ o State/Local Organization o National Organization Contact Person:__________________________________________________ Phone Number:__________________________________________________ Please fax to the attention of AAAW, at the Brady Campaign at xxx-xxx-xxxx Please direct questions to Brian at xxx-xxx-xxxx ********************************************** |
|
Semi-automatic assault weapons can fire up to 6 bullets a second Can anyone here pull the trigger that fast, normally speaking, not bump firing. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. How can they be against something that does not exist? "Semiautomatic Assault Weapon" is a completely fabricated term. |
| Hmm, the fact that gun makers changed cosmetic items to make their guns legal seems to be a problem for them. That ought to be an interesting proposed amendment to the law. They'll probably just say that any weapon that can take more than 10 rounds in a magazine is illegal. |
|
Reading Brady's main page is getting more and more entertaining these days. Have you noticed that they're getting more and more like the National Enquirer in their style, and come across as having even less credibility? I think they're in deep shit and they know it. I hope they drown in it. CJ |
|
If the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby extremists have their way, our neighborhoods will once again be flooded with these combat weapons, threatening both our police and the public. Only supply and demand will tell. Starve a society of a desire and guess what happens. There a web site for this? |
|
...assault weapons will once again flood our streets. When did they ever flood the streets? The law has worked. BULLSHIT In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. How the hell does this have to do with reducing crime? Those damn bastards just don't get it.[pissed] |
|
I wish they would flood the street I live on with assault weapons! damn the thought of guns for free its just too good to be true. As someone else posted they would have to outright make it illegal to own a gun that accepted a mag with more than 10 rnds to "catch" all these grandfathered AWs. and such a law would make the 10/22 illegal which would piss off alot of people. These laws make me want one even more kinda like Y2K dont need it but damn you make me want it |
|
Yeah, right. I can just see it now. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines just ROAMING your streets, hiding in the bushes, crawling into your backyards, assaulting you...and all without a single human being carrying any of them. No, these assault weapons are self-motivated and run around the streets like a pack of dogs. Watch out for that rogue gang of AK-47's! They like to prey on little old ladies who are out getting their morning paper! Why can't these stupid pigf**kers come to the right conclusion, which is simply that it's CRIMINALS that we need to be concerned about and not the availability of a piece of HARDWARE???? Stupidity of this magnitude should be a capital crime! These idiots make me want to try to BEAT the stupidity out of them. I know it won't work, but the desire is still there. I'd like very much to invite all the leading anti's on a free, all expenses paid vacation in a ship crossing the Pacific Ocean....but with only enough fuel to make it halfway...with no working radios. And the ship should be so well camouflaged to the water that nobody can find it. CJ |
|
Lets put together another extremist-full-of-lies-leaflet. We need to make sure to cite the number of people who have been prosecuted under the law, the inability of the law to affect criminals, and the miniscule effect on crime it was originally intended to have. Ok, I guess there's not much room for lying there. How about focusing on the law really being about appearance, not functionality. Guns are banned because someone thinks they're ugly, not because they're used in crimes. Though, I guess that approach wouldn't work on a few states where gun ownership itself is a crime. I think we're screwed. There's just no way that we can put out propaganda as well as the brady bunch. All we have on our side is the truth and a bunch of straightforward facts. They have lies tugging at people's heart strings. |
| Here is a silly idea: Why don't we just start a petition of our own? Then when the Brady camp turns in their petition for it's renewal with 2000 names, we can plop down ours with 20,000 signatures AGAINST it. To be honest, I think this board, as well as the other firearms-related sites around the internet, has much more reach than the Brady camp realizes. Just my .02 |
|
You know, myself and several of my friends used to put together ridiculously untrue leaflets that were anti-gun as a kind of sardonic parody of the anti-gun agenda. We'd take the same arguments the antis use and blow them up just a little bit (take them to their ultimate end so to speak) and then print them up and distribute them at a couple college campuses and college hangouts. We had to stop because the anti-gun kids didn't get the joke. They took the leaflets seriously, and some of us actually had kids in our classes use them in gun control debates (which made for some fun times). The sad thing is, you really can't thump the anti-gun liberal crowd with hyperbole and outright lies, because that's all they hear and "believe" now. |
|
Quoted: Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. |
|
Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. Eh? Something about that just doesn't make sense. So you banned something and legal purchases of said banned item decreased after the ban took effect? Ummm........ Duh? Furthermore, if the law had actually worked, wouldn't the requests for background checks on assault weapons decrease by 100%? Edited to add: Can somebody help me wrap my enfeebled brain around this? |
|
Quoted: Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. So, according to these statics one could infer that after the manufacturers "circumvented" the law, the lack of bayonets and collapsable stocks gas accounted for the drop in crime due to assault rifles. It shouldn't be too difficult to compare "assault rifle crimes" prior to the ban and after. I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that there shouldn't be any change. |
|
Quoted: Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. So, according to these statics one could infer that after the manufacturers "circumvented" the law, the lack of bayonets and collapsable stocks gas accounted for the drop in crime due to assault rifles. It shouldn't be too difficult to compare "assault rifle crimes" prior to the ban and after. I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that there shouldn't be any change. |
|
Quoted: Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. So, according to these statics one could infer that after the manufacturers "circumvented" the law, the lack of bayonets and collapsable stocks gas accounted for the drop in crime due to assault rifles. It shouldn't be too difficult to compare "assault rifle crimes" prior to the ban and after. I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that there shouldn't be any change. |
|
Quoted: Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. So, according to these statics one could infer that after the manufacturers "circumvented" the law, the lack of bayonets and collapsable stocks gas accounted for the drop in crime due to assault rifles. It shouldn't be too difficult to compare "assault rifle crimes" prior to the ban and after. I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that there shouldn't be any change. |
|
Quoted: Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. So, according to these statics one could infer that after the manufacturers "circumvented" the law, the lack of bayonets and collapsable stocks gas accounted for the drop in crime due to assault rifles. It shouldn't be too difficult to compare "assault rifle crimes" prior to the ban and after. I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that there shouldn't be any change. |
|
Quoted: In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. How the hell does this have to do with reducing crime? Hey, give them a break, it's the only statistic that they could dig up that would fool ignorant people into thinking that the ban had any (positive) effect on the crime rate. This is how the game goes. We claim that the having citizens legally own and bear firearms reduces violent crime. Then we back it up with simple statistics that unequivocally support our position. In response, the antis squeeze out things like "more children (ages 17-25) were killed by handguns during the 3rd week of October than were killed by testicular cancer". The problem is that most people are too afraid of guns to admit that our position is, without fail, supported by the numbers. Their simple, logic challenged brains can't get beyond "guns kill, so ban guns." I'm really suprised that so many of these people lived to adulthood without walking out in front of a truck or something. |
|
Quoted: In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. How the hell does this have to do with reducing crime? Here is a phrase I use a lot, "Figures don't Lie, but Liars can figure." Here is the way the Brady Crapaign uses statitics to support its case. It says there was a 20% reduction in trace requests. What were the raw numbers? Were there 10 requests before the ban an only 8 afterwards? That's a 20% reduction. They typically only show percentages, because they can LOOK much more effective. If they used the actual numbers, people would see how ridiculous their claims are. I always wonder how they deal with the fact that the cities and states with the MOST STRICT gun laws typically have the HIGHEST crime rates, and those with the MOST RELAXED gun laws typically have the LOWEST crime rates. They always deal with those issues the same way, by ignoring it. |
|
Quoted: Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. So, according to these statics one could infer that after the manufacturers "circumvented" the law, the lack of bayonets and collapsable stocks gas accounted for the drop in crime due to assault rifles. It shouldn't be too difficult to compare "assault rifle crimes" prior to the ban and after. I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that there shouldn't be any change. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban because of the great threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety. The law has worked. In 1999, the National Institute for Justice (NIJ) reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first year after the federal ban took effect. While the law has been successful, we can do more. Assault weapons produced before the 1994 law can still be sold in most parts of the country. We need to strengthen the ban to cover these "grandfathered" weapons and also stop gun industry efforts to circumvent the law by changing some cosmetic features or the name of a firearm. So, according to these statics one could infer that after the manufacturers "circumvented" the law, the lack of bayonets and collapsable stocks gas accounted for the drop in crime due to assault rifles. It shouldn't be too difficult to compare "assault rifle crimes" prior to the ban and after. I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that there shouldn't be any change. Dude, you posted the same response 6 times, why don't you go back and delete a couple of them? |