Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/22/2003 8:42:23 AM EDT
[url]http://www.cjonline.com/stories/052203/opi_assaultweapons.shtml [/url] CRC
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 9:02:38 AM EDT
More useless diatribe from the anti-gun news media. These people never voted Repblican, and certainly would've voted for Bush Jr. So whats the point about pushing for renewal of the assult weapons ban? The ban was put in place by a Democrat ten years ago. Back then the Democrats controlled the Presidency and the House. A lot of Democrats lost their elected offices resulting from their vote on the bill. Today we have a Republican president, and a Republican controlled House and Senate. And of course the WTC/Pentagon attack of 9/11/01. ======================================================= Opinions Assault weapons ban -- Extension needed By The Capital-Journal editorial board The 1994 assault weapons ban must be renewed next year or it will die. President Bush says he supports extension of the ban, but House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a fellow Texas Republican, is refusing to allow a vote on it. He says the House will never vote on the extension. If he really means what he says, Bush must exercise some of his political muscle and get the extension moving. There is no earthly reason why assault weapons need to be freely available. Banning them does nothing to affect sportsmen and hunters or any other legitimate use or ownership of guns. What the ban has done, however, is cut down on the use of assault weapons used in crime. In just the first eight months after taking effect, the number of assault weapons traced to crimes dropped 18 percent from the same period a year earlier. Bush can't have it both ways on this issue. If he truly supports an extension of the ban -- which he should -- he must make his actions match his words. © Copyright 2003 CJOnline / The Topeka Capital-Journal / Morris Communications
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 9:09:37 AM EDT
ahhh, someone finally dared to pipe up about this in my neck of the woods, eh? They'll hear about it from me...
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 9:17:13 AM EDT
Banning them does nothing to affect sportsmen and hunters [red]or any other legitimate use or ownership of guns.[/red]
View Quote
First of all, is target shooting a legitimate activity? Yes? Then stop trying to take away my target rifle. Second of all, why should a deer get less legal protection than a can or a piece of paper? Stupid people seem to think that Bambi deserves less protection than an old wrinkly pumpkin.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 10:12:10 AM EDT
I agree with the article 100%. We must urge the president to stand behind his campaign promise and not cowardly backtrack like bush "no new taxes" sr. and klinton. I ask all responsible gun owners of this great democracy to write and call the president and your legislators to pass a new assault weapon ban to bring sincerity back to government.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 10:39:08 AM EDT
Well, at least he didn't let facts and logic get in the way of his argument.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 11:13:41 AM EDT
can anyone give me an idea where they're getting this nugget from? the "18 percent drop in traces to crime as compared to '93" one? I'd really like to know where they're coming from before flaming them, and tearing their argument apart, but I cant find this info on the net anywhere.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 11:19:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Torf:
Banning them does nothing to affect sportsmen and hunters [red]or any other legitimate use or ownership of guns.[/red]
View Quote
First of all, is target shooting a legitimate activity? Yes? Then stop trying to take away my target rifle. . . Stupid people seem to think that Bambi deserves less protection than an old wrinkly pumpkin.
View Quote
In the eyes of the anti-gunners, and the previous administration, "plinking" informal target shooting is not considered a legitimate shooting activity. I think it has to be sanction by somebody, like the IOC etc.
Originally Posted By steenkybastage: can anyone give me an idea where they're getting this nugget from? the "18 percent drop in traces to crime as compared to '93" one? I'd really like to know where they're coming from before flaming them, and tearing their argument apart, but I cant find this info on the net anywhere.
View Quote
Its called "creative license," consider the scandal at the NY Times, and the brewing one at the NY Post, you get the drift?
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 11:26:15 AM EDT
I Hate Topeka!!
Top Top