Leave it to the press to invent new terminology.
[url=http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/ed050903s404133.htm] The Courier Journal[/url]
[b]Assault-gun posturing[/b]
"YES , we suppose we should be thrilled that President Bush is supporting a 10-year extension of the ban on assault weapons. After all, the National Rifle Association is adamantly opposed, and on every other issue, it and Mr. Bush have agreed.
But we aren't thrilled. If the first nine years of the ban have proved anything, it's that the law doesn't go far enough.
Very quickly, the gun industry figured out how to get around the law by slightly modifying weapons.
As this month's issue of Gun World says, assault rifles ''are far from dead. Stunned momentarily, they sprang back with a vengeance and seem better than ever. Purveyors abound, producing post-ban assault rifles for civilians.''
Assault weapons are built to kill large numbers of people quickly. They are favored by drug
traffickers and big-time criminals, who many times have used them to kill police.
But gun purists are viscerally opposed to all restrictions on weapons. And many members of
Congress agree.
So getting even the current weak ban extended will be a challenge -- which makes the President's support important. But if he were really interested in keeping assault weapons off the streets, he would support legislation to strengthen the ban instead.
Mr. Bush's political supporters claim he's being bold. They say support of any ban puts him at odds with his base.
Hogwash: There's no bravery or risk in this move. Voters overwhelmingly support a ban.
They know what Uzis, AK47s and assault rifles like the one used in the sniper killings are built for, and it doesn't have a thing to do with sports.