I'm at work right now and dont have too much time to write...does anyone have a good short response to this opinion letter printed on the Penn State Newspaper.....thanks,


http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/09/09-16-04tdc/09-16-04dops-letter-02.asp

[ Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004 ]

Letter to the Editor
Bush, Congress need to ban assault guns
Semi-Automatics, assault weapons, or military-style machine guns; whatever you call them, the decision of renewing the Assault Weapons Ban seems obvious to me. Removing weapons with bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, grenade launchers and clips containing more than ten rounds seems prudent to me, but the Republican controlled congress determined otherwise. While Pres. Bush stated he would renew the ban if brought before him, he did nothing knowing it would never get that far. This inaction seems irresponsible to me when considering not only foreign, but domestic terrorism, especially from a man who is self-descriptively, "tough on terror." Critics of the ban claim it was ineffective and fear an infringement of our Second Amendment rights, but did our constitutional forefathers have uzis in mind when writing it? I understand the personal right to hunt, and to protect, but these weapons are overkill. According to Bill Schneider of CNN, "a National Annenberg election survey shows two thirds of the public favors extending the ban." Additionally, more than 2,000 law enforcement groups supported presidential hopeful John Kerry at a rally, where he denounced Bush for allowing it to lapse. With even local law enforcement behind the Assault Weapons Ban, doesn't it only seem logical that this is something worth saving?

I really pisses me off that people like this will blindly believe one group and disregard another group without even taking the time to investigate the topic. And then they turn around and spew the same bullshit. What did Senator Kerry do to extend the ban? Did he show up for the Senate? Wait, is he still a Senator? I bet she thinks Bush is responsible for Sept. 11th. Sheesh.

Sorry mayday, I know this doesn't help, but I am really getting fed up with this bullshit.


ByteTheBullet  (-:

- first of all, it didn't work.

- hunting isn't mentioned in the Constitution

- VPC/Brady Campaign/StoptheNRA.Com "seeded" the press for months nowing that the AWB would sunset with deliberate info confusing "AWB"s with Full-auto (which has been severely restricted since NFA 34.  Basically the polls all rely on the fact that people can't tell the difference between a machine gun, a pre-ban AW and a post-ban AW.

- VPC's "1 in 5" officers killed misrepresents the FBI UCR by including data not specific to type of rifle use, but to caliber (ie: .308, 30/06, .223 AND .22LR!!!)   See Macallan's post half-way down the page: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=275429&page=2

- Mr. TOM DIAZ (Violence Policy Center): If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass.

- www.saf.org/viewoe.asp?id=107

What is with people saying our forefathers didnt invision UZI's, that why they call the Constitution a living document and thats exactly wat the forefathers had in mind.  We should be able to have the same modern firearms as the military has

That's one weak ass argument!  You can whip 'em with one hand tied behind your back.  Post your response so we can applaud you, and keep vigilant.

Try:

The Assault Weapons Ban is not about terror, it is not about crime control, it is about feel good legislation meant to mobilize the liberal base in the 1994 elections.  Period.  When Kerry assails the Bush administration as supporting terrorists by allowing the ban to expire he ignores facts and realities.  Fact:  Terrorists have access to much more dangerous weapons outside the country than in (the National Firearms Act outlaws the weapons a terrorist would most like, and it was passed in 1934).
Fact:  Terrorists improvise, and do not engage in stand-up conflict tactics like shootouts.
Fact:  There has not (in modern history) been a single incident of a bayonet being used in a crime.
Fact:  Flash hiders hide the flaash from the shooter, they do NOT disguise the location of a weapon.  The perception that flash hiders make a weapon stealthy are misinformed.
Fact:  Standard capacity magazines have been available in this country for the entire time the "ban" has been in place, the only question is one of price.
Fact:  "Assault Weapons" as described in the law are rarely used in criminal activity. (then go look up this number).

The argument that the "founding fathers did not contemplate assault weapons" is less than compelling for a few reasons.  First, the fathers wanted us to be able to rebel if necessary.  The idea of hunting being at the center of the second amendment is a new one.  Second, one of the few Supreme Court cases on the topic (U.S. v. Miller, 1939 or so) determined that only weapons with a valid military purpose were protected by the 2nd Amendment .  Third, the founding fathers never envisioned an internet, a telephone, a radio, or a television, but as time has evolved, all the new media have become as protected as the old.  

Just a start....shooter

The writer "seems" to have a lot of half baked ideas that aren't thought through or investigated for accuracy, just regurgitated from it's [that is intentional] favorite info source.

Aww, f@ck 'em, we've got the guns.

just posted this response.

Sandi, I am writing this in the hope that you are not a partisan who will listen to facts that fly in the face of your very poorly written article.  I am going to assume that you have no idea what the 2nd amendment was written for.  It was not written to guarantee that people could hunt.  It was written so that the American people could defend themselves from tyranny either through a despotic government (liberal?) or from invasion by a hostile country.  It was written so that the American people could have combat weapons not shotguns, deer rifles or any other hunting type of weapon.  The next thing is that it has always been possible to buy "assault rifles"  this ban did not prevent anyone from buying a AK47 or AR15 or whatever they wanted.  What it did was say you couldn’t have one with a flash hider, bayonet lug or telescoping butstock on it. So they have been sold for the last 10 yrs without these scary accessories on it!  The AWB only banned cosmetic features on some type of weapons.  It also banned the current selling of high capacity magazines to civilians.  But the truth was that there has been hundred of thousands of these mags that are still on the market today that were made before the AWB came into effect that anybody could buy at anytime.  The only thing the AWB did was punish law abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.  In case you haven't noticed, criminals BREAK LAWS they don’t care what kind of laws there are because they BREAK THEM.  So the AWB had absolutely no effect on any criminals what so ever all they did was punish law abiding gun owners.  It also has been pointed out repeatedly that it had absolutely no effect on preventing any kind of crime involving "assault weapons".  And finally there is a huge difference between a fully automatic rifle where you pull the trigger once and it discharges a whole mag at once and a semiautomatic where you have to pull the trigger for every single round.  The general populace has never been able to buy a fully automatic weapon without a special federal permit and license and still cannot with the AWB's demise.  The AWB had nothing to do with banning fully automatic weapons they were already banned!  So in conclusion Sandi I hope you are a FAIR minded person who will write further about this in a honest, fair and factually correct follow up story.

When a law is passed, who obeys it ? By definition, all law abiding citizens will obey the law. By definition , all criminals disobey the law. So , in makeing a law to disarm criminals , you will actully be disarmeing law abiding citizens. Of course the criminals will know this, and will use it to their advantage. The end result being as the United Kingdom, and so many other countries have discoverd. Disarming the victoms only leads to higher crime rates. It is logical. P.S. Please forgive my bad spelling.  

Feel free to use this:


In a letter to the editor of the Collegian concerning the assault weapons ban, dated September 16, the author begins by stating:

“Semi-Automatics, assault weapons, or military-style machine guns; whatever you call them...”.  

Well, what you call them is of the utmost importance in making and winning an argument.  The entire “assault weapons bill” was a farce from the beginning.  The left succeeded in gaining control of definitions, and then used that control to redefine some firearms as “assualt weapons” when they were nothing of the sort.  True assault weapons are fully automatic military weapons (as long as the operator holds the trigger back, the weapon will fire).  They have been severely regulated since the 1930s.  The AWB had absolutely no effect on these machine guns.

As the beguiled author of the letter illustrates, the left won the day by getting people to think that simple, semi-automatic rifles (one shot, no matter how long you hold the trigger) were assault weapons.  Demagogues operate by getting emotionally controlled people to fear things - and then offer solutions to those fears.  Everyone has feelings; fewer people take the time to study issues and gain understanding.  The left knew that it could control the debate, and win it, if it could make people think that these semi-automatic weapons are the same as true military guns.  The author shows the success that the left enjoyed.  He thinks the bill involved machine guns.  Remember that when you see polls favoring extending the AWB.  Many folks who want to continue the ban were similarly duped.

The “assault weapons” that the AWB restricted were nothing more than semi-automatic rifles that had certain cosmetic features.  Banned items included bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, folding or collapable stocks and the ability to receive full capacity magazines. The actual “firepower” of the dreaded “assault weapons” restricted by the ban, and unregulated guns is ABSOLUTELY THE SAME.

The left wants you to vote them into power and keep them there.  They will continually come up with things for you to fear.  Don’t let them fool you into turning off your thinking cap.

They are called “knee-jerk liberals” for a reason.

Frustrate a liberal.  Think!

I've devolved into the simple opinion,:

"You support renewal of AWB? You are an idiot. Don't be an idiot all your life. Educate yourself about what you are talking about before you open your mouth or STFU."

Everything else is just a waste of breath.
-LS