[img]defendliberty.com/pics/bushgun.jpg[/img]

[url=www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~1356237,00.html]Keep assault-weapon controls[/url]

President Bush has announced that he supports a federal ban on assault weapons. His administration, therefore, is likely to renew the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban that is set to expire before the end of Bush's term.  

Members of the National Rifle Association and other gun-advocate groups, however, have expressed dismay. Some went so far as to threaten to dump Bush in 2004 and elect someone else if he signs a bill extending the prohibition.

That is entirely their choice. [b]But millions of other people support reasonable federal gun control and believe law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights without keeping and trading assault weapons designed for nothing more than killing a lot of people in a short amount of time.[/b]

[red]The Post strongly supports the president's decision to stay with a reasonable measure that makes sense and thus continue to control such weapons.[/red]

Since 1994, domestic gun manufacturers have been required to cease production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds, except for military or police use. Imports of such weapons already are banned under administrative rules signed by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Assault weapons and clips manufactured before 1994 are "grandfathered" in and can still be possessed and sold.

Banned weapons include AK-47s, the Beretta Ar70, Colt AR-15, Uzis and the TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22.

An AK-47 rifle was used in the recent killing of a 15-year-old boy and wounding of three teenage girls when gunmen opened fire on a packed New Orleans school gym. A TEC-9 was used in the Columbine High School massacre.

[b]Many Second Amendment defenders argue that, while our country is under the threat of terrorist attacks and engaged in war, American citizens should be able to arm themselves with assault weapons. This logic escapes us.

The weapons ban was put into place to save us from ourselves, if you will. It is designed to keep weapons with unusual firepower off the streets so that police won't be outgunned and to help reduce the number of innocent victims in the line of fire when someone decides to shoot up a school or a workplace.[b]

[red]As for fighting terrorism, several branches of the military and law enforcement are assigned to do that. Police also have enhanced firepower to protect the masses. There is no reason to now arm citizens with assault weapons to fight this enemy.[/red]

Let's be reasonable. An assault-weapons ban is not an attack on the right to bear arms. It's a reasonable gun-control measure that deserves renewal because [b]there is no good reason for the average citizen to possess such firepower.[/b]

If he signs it, he's a one termer, and he knows it.

I hope a second term is more important to him than it is to me.

Jay

Ah yes, the Denver Post.

The paper that "endorses" Denver mayoral candidate Hickenlooper, and for the next several days runs "stories" trying to discredit him.

Don't worry, Imbroglio...come election time, the Post won't be backing Bush at all.
Now, take your NyQuil and go to sleep.

No politician can be trusted.

They can all be trusted to do whatever it takes to get the most money and votes.

Definitely their strong suit.

Newspaper editors.  Is there anything they don't know?

Yeah, because .223 is unusual firepower [>:/]

Well, they can't seem to keep their facts straight... it was an SKS used in New Orleans.

Since the "Police" can't be everywhere all the time, is it reasonable to say that they can not actually "protect" us? With this being true( I do not have an officer posted outside my door 24-7 ) I reserve the right to protect my family as I see fit!!