Good riddance!

[Charley]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress will not vote on an assault weapons ban due to expire Monday, Republican leaders said Wednesday, rejecting a last-ditch effort by supporters to renew it.

"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters.

The 10-year ban, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it.

Some Democrats and several police leaders said President George W. Bush should try to persuade Congress to renew the ban. Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

"If the president asked me, it'd still be no ... because we don't have the votes to pass an assault weapons ban and it will expire Monday and that's that," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, told reporters later.

DeLay said the ban was "a feel-good piece of legislation" that does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

However, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said he would consider allowing the House to vote on legislation only if the Senate acted first.

Appearing at a news conference, chiefs of police from the District of Columbia; Los Angeles, California; Atlanta, Georgia; and Seattle, Washington; predicted an increase in violent gun crimes if the ban does expire.

"Our streets, our homes, our citizens and our police officers will face great danger unless the federal ban on assault weapons is renewed," said Charles H. Ramsey, the police chief in the nation's capital.

In March, the Senate voted to add the ban to a bill that would have immunized gun manufacturers from liability suits stemming from violent gun crimes. But the Senate voted 90-8 against the final bill after the National Rifle Association urged its defeat.

NRA President Wayne LaPierre said in an interview with The Associated Press that his group is so confident that Congress won't renew the ban that it is not spending any more money on ads this year opposing it.

He said supporters of the ban could not muster the support needed to bring it to a vote in the House because several Democrats attribute losing their majority in the House in 1994 over votes then in favor of the ban.

Now, all we need to do is build an "assault weapon" to shoot Diane Feinstein to the Moon, and I'd say we'd be doing alright. :cool

[Figrin D'an]

That bill was so incredibly useless. Much like the Patriot Act, I'm convinced that it passed initially simply because few congressmen actually took the time to read it.

[Charley]

<a href=http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3170631,00.html>Columbine parents even think the AWB is stupid</a>

If you're an emotional knee-jerk supporter of the AWB, this is damning to your case, I think.


Here's an article from Yahoo about potential journalism fraud in reporting the AWB:


Second Amendment Foundation Condemns ABC News Fraud in Report on Sunset of 'Assault Weapons' Law

2 hours, 10 minutes ago




To: National Desk

Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, 425-454-7012

BELLEVUE, Wash., Sept. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today called on ABC News anchor Peter Jennings and correspondent Bill Redeker to admit the network distorted fact during a report on the end of the so-called "assault weapons" ban that aired Wednesday evening, Sept. 8.

During that segment, video footage from the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout in March 1997 showed the robbers firing full-automatic weapons, suggesting that this type of firearm will be legal when the ban expires at midnight Sept. 13. These guns had been illegally modified, yet ABC News left the impression that such rifles will be available to the general public.

"Such firearms were illegal prior to the ban, and will be illegal after it sunsets, and ABC knows it," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "ABC's research on this story was either incredibly poor or deliberately distorted. There is no other explanation. It's the same distorted reporting we saw in 1994, prior to the ban, in which the press faked footage in an attempt to portray ammunition from these guns as explosively lethal.

Reporter Redeker made an issue out of certain cosmetic features that were affected by the ban, specifically folding stocks and flash suppressors. He lamented that folding stocks make these rifles more "concealable" and the flash suppressor makes it harder to spot a shooter at night.

"These cosmetic features have nothing to do with how a particular firearm functions," Gottlieb stressed, "or how lethal it might be. That is why the 1994 ban -- which only affected the appearance of these guns, not their operation -- was nonsense to begin with.

"Rather than explain the law, or note federal studies that have determined this ban, as well as other gun control laws, were ineffective in reducing crime, ABC News sensationalized, and as a result fictionalized, what this ban did and what will result from the law's sunset," Gottlieb concluded. "That's not simply irresponsible reporting. It's journalistic fraud, and ABC News, Jennings and Redeker should apologize for it."

Perhaps its pandemic ignorance, but there's also a significant case for a disturbing amount of bias in the media against second amendment supporters.

[Gurney Devries]

Now I can get that 13 round magazine for my Beretta without spending upwards of $60. :cool The ban didn't even make it impossible to purchase such things, it just made it pricey.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Gurney Devries
Now I can get that 13 round magazine for my Beretta without spending upwards of $60. :cool The ban didn't even make it impossible to purchase such things, it just made it pricey.

It made it impossible for me. My sidearm was invented after 1994. I had no pre-ban market to exploit :(

[Charley]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec04/ban_09-09.html


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: You know, he's saying the people want it to expire. That is just plain wrong. Every single poll has shown two-thirds to three-fourths of the American people want the bill to continue. That's a fact, Larry.

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: Until you define what's in the bill and the type of...

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Oh, that's baloney.

:lol BURRRRN! :lol

What's wrong, Diane? Why would all those people in favor of the ban ever waver in support if shown the details inside? Surely they'd stand by you and your ban, right?

Right???

:lol

[Morgan Evanar]

Since automatic weapons were banned in the thirties or something, the AWB has been utterly pointless.

"Oooh that gun looks dangerous! BAN IT!" kjl;jjl;jsfjfkkjdf utterly stupid.

[Phantom]

Aww man, I can't believe their not going to resign it. I mean as far as I can tell it was doing a wounderful job thus far, I mean look their hasn't been any crimes since it was passed, and if there was they sure didn't use assult rifles ...

Because as we all know, criminals follow the laws, which would include them turning over their weapons to the authorities ...

:rolleyes

God I'm glad that ban is not going to go through, what a stupid law. It just amazes that people actually thought that would work.

[Charley]

And as of tonight....its GONE

:)

[jjwr]

As written the law was stupid, yes certain types of guns should be banned but it needs to be handled reasonably and that wasn't the case.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

last week John Kerry upbraided the president for not actively seeking the ban to be renewed - even though no Democratic senators or Republican ones were willing to try to renew the ban, as the public was so against it.

I'm glad it's gone.

[Charley]

Originally posted by jjwr
As written the law was stupid, yes certain types of guns should be banned but it needs to be handled reasonably and that wasn't the case.

The only guns that should be banned are ones that are of such low quality that you risk having it explode in your hand. In my opinion, everything else (including Class III arms) should be legal for everyone of age to own, with the exception of the insane or violent felons.


Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
last week John Kerry upbraided the president for not actively seeking the ban to be renewed - even though no Democratic senators or Republican ones were willing to try to renew the ban, as the public was so against it.

I'm glad it's gone.

Isn't it interesting to see the timing of Kerry's AWB speeches on the campaign trail? Funny how he didn't speak a peep about it until he knew it would expire, even though its his biggest issue of support in his Senatorial career.

Oh, and I also love how he's saying that only terrorists and criminals want "assault weapons". For somebody who's criticized Bush's "With us or against us" mindset, he's really setting a poor precedent.

[March Kalas]

The only guns that should be banned are ones that are of such low quality that you risk having it explode in your hand. In my opinion, everything else (including Class III arms) should be legal for everyone of age to own, with the exception of the insane or violent felons.



So true. Of course, you must understand that the only people that would pay attention to the law are definately the dangerous ones. I mean, do you think criminals are the ones using assault weapons? Sheesh. It's not like the law-abiding citizens are the ones who need good enough weapons to protect themselves. And you know that all criminals buy their guns legally and would gladly hand them over.
:rolleyes

Listen people. If you want to have any kind of gun control over the criminals, try and attack the black market. If you want less crime, let the people who actually pay attention to the law have a sufficient means to defend themselves. The government has no right to leave law abiding citizens defenseless.

I'm glad that crap got dropped.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
last week John Kerry upbraided the president for not actively seeking the ban to be renewed - even though no Democratic senators or Republican ones were willing to try to renew the ban, as the public was so against it.

Really?

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040910/OPINION01/409100303/1035/OPINION


A survey this spring by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center found 71 percent of the public wants the ban continued. Even a majority of gun owners (64 percent) supports it. In households with a National Rifle Association member, support shrinks to 46 percent.

[Charley]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Really?

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040910/OPINION01/409100303/1035/OPINION

Ask those same people if they think the ban restricts machine guns.

[Shawn]

People still quote survey's like they're some kind of factual reference? I thought everyone knew that surveys are always skewed by whoever's conducting them to further their own agenda.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Shawn
People still quote survey's like they're some kind of factual reference? I thought everyone knew that surveys are always skewed by whoever's conducting them to further their own agenda.

Not always, but it does pay to see who funds the survey. There are a few statistic shops out there with sterling reputations. The problem is that people assume all statistics are beyond critique.

[imported_Eve]

This law was made to make people feel better about things like Columbine.

A gun isn't dangerous. It's the person holding the gun.

Banning certain weapons is like banning alcohol. Spend time on teaching people how to shoot a weapon, spend time on not ignoring warning signs pf psychos, and spend time strengthening laws that should put certain people behind bars instead of back on the streets.

[imported_Grev Drasen]

I heard about this briefly on Rush Limbaugh this morning, and after hearing Kerry's response I couldn't help but laugh. It seems like he's grabbing for any piece of hope he can to put him back into this race.

Preaching against assault weapons and terrorists isn't going to help, Senator.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Grev Drasen
Preaching against assault weapons and terrorists isn't going to help, Senator.

If you want an assault weapon you are obviously a terrorist. Kerry defends the second amendment, which is obviously about the right of hunters to own guns for hunting and nothing else.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Eve
A gun isn't dangerous. It's the person holding the gun.

Makes it a lot easier to be dangerous though :)

[Charley]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Makes it a lot easier to be dangerous though :)

Yes and when Eddie Izzard said that the first time, it still wasn't all that funny.

[Shawn]

Originally posted by Charley
Not always, but it does pay to see who funds the survey. There are a few statistic shops out there with sterling reputations. The problem is that people assume all statistics are beyond critique. Even if the survey isn't intentionally skewed, it's always based on a small sample population. Unless you're doing a nationwide survey with at least the vast majority of the people participating, it's not necessarily going to reflect the opinions of the populace as a whole. I could pick 10 people, ask them a Yes or No question and have all 10 of them say "No", even if 90% of the population would say "Yes".

Truth be told, I'm not familiar with which statistic shops are supposed to be reliable, but I don't take any survey with more than a grain of salt.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Shawn
Even if the survey isn't intentionally skewed, it's always based on a small sample population. Unless you're doing a nationwide survey with at least the vast majority of the people participating, it's not necessarily going to reflect the opinions of the populace as a whole. I could pick 10 people, ask them a Yes or No question and have all 10 of them say "No", even if 90% of the population would say "Yes".

Truth be told, I'm not familiar with which statistic shops are supposed to be reliable, but I don't take any survey with more than a grain of salt.

If your sampling system is good, you can actually get a very good representation of the country's population with a sample size of 390 or so people. Suprisingly, this works quite well.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Makes it a lot easier to be dangerous though :)

What's your point? That auto guns can kill?

Yeah well, WRX's kill approx 50 people a year in Aust. They kill over 100 in the USA.

OMG, BAN WRX'S!!!!!!!! THEY MAKE IT EASIER TO KILL!!!!!!

Which is not a long bow to draw in this. WRX's are utter lighting and can get unskilled or idiots into trouble.

The point of legislation should be to put Auto weapons or extreme performance cars in the right hands. Outright bans not only are pointless, they dont do a damn thing in gun crime. Control however, does.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
What's your point? That auto guns can kill?

Yeah well, WRX's kill approx 50 people a year in Aust. They kill over 100 in the USA.

OMG, BAN WRX'S!!!!!!!! THEY MAKE IT EASIER TO KILL!!!!!!

Which is not a long bow to draw in this. WRX's are utter lighting and can get unskilled or idiots into trouble.

The point of legislation should be to put Auto weapons or extreme performance cars in the right hands. Outright bans not only are pointless, they dont do a damn thing in gun crime. Control however, does.

Spoken like a true protege :cool

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Shawn
I could pick 10 people, ask them a Yes or No question and have all 10 of them say "No", even if 90% of the population would say "Yes".

By definition, you'd have to pick around 100 (I think that's the number) for your sample to begin to be considered legitimate so your example doesn't float.

There are all kinds of rules for proper sampling procedure, and unless I'm sadly mistaken there has to be some disclosure of what procedure was followed, what assumptions were made, etc. when the study is released. The more extensive that disclosure is, the more you can check on to be certain that sampling was performed appropriately.

[Charley]

They don't have to disclose anything about their sampling. When have you seen a news article reference a stastistic shop's sampling technique? What they will do is usually state who did the work, thus leaving the task of investigation to the reader.

Its really fun to check up on these sorts of things :)

[Pierce Tondry]

I'm talking about the studies themselves, though. When you're a member of Gallup, say, and you put together a survey on the upcoming presidential election, I'm pretty sure the final report you craft should have those kinds of things in them.

Edit: Ironically, I just realized that your post makes a second point about how articles can manipulate good data through presentation.

[Charley]

Well Gallup is an exception of grand repute. Its among the 5% of bean counters that follow something akin to an ethical code.

[Pierce Tondry]

Which is my point. If you do things the right way, you allow your readers enough information to check your procedures and decide for themselves if the way you conducted your survey and the conclusions you then drew are correct. Simply because a study exists doesn't make it accurate, but neither is it inherently invalid either and there are tools/guidelines you can use to check that.

[Charley]

As a derail, here's my buddy showing off his stash, complete with a post-sunset AR-15 (M4gery) with an awesome EOtech sight. He's also a proud XD owner like myself :cool

<img src=http://dravness.com/x.guns/drav-guns-all.jpg>

The commie gun with the bayonet (Yugo SKS) will probably get sold to me in the very near future :cool

[Shawn]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
By definition, you'd have to pick around 100 (I think that's the number) for your sample to begin to be considered legitimate so your example doesn't float.Sure it does. Even with a 100 people, that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be an accurate reflection of the populace as a whole. Especially if you go out of your way to ask 100 people from the same group/bracket.

Charley says that there are reputable groups and I believe him. Just stating that it's terribly easy to be disreputable.

[March Kalas]

If you want an assault weapon you are obviously a terrorist.

Or you just love guns or are crazily serious about defending your home. People in Switzerland own assault weapons (once you're finished with military service, you're required by law to keep an assault rifle in your home for a year or something or so what research I've done has told me) and the citizens over there that own them aren't terrorists. (not to mention everyone there is trained to use a gun as a child I think)

(can someone tell me if there has been much terrorism in Switzerland)

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by March Kalas
Or you just love guns or are crazily serious about defending your home. People in Switzerland own assault weapons (once you're finished with military service, you're required by law to keep an assault rifle in your home for a year or something or so what research I've done has told me) and the citizens over there that own them aren't terrorists. (not to mention everyone there is trained to use a gun as a child I think)

(can someone tell me if there has been much terrorism in Switzerland)

Yes I know. I was being blatantly sarcastic.

[March Kalas]

Of course. It might have helped to put the :rolleyes smiley in though :)

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by March Kalas
Or you just love guns or are crazily serious about defending your home. People in Switzerland own assault weapons (once you're finished with military service, you're required by law to keep an assault rifle in your home for a year or something or so what research I've done has told me) and the citizens over there that own them aren't terrorists. (not to mention everyone there is trained to use a gun as a child I think)

(can someone tell me if there has been much terrorism in Switzerland)
Switzerland has a tiny army, the gun is there for national security. You only have 72 rounds and that's your lot. Pretty easy to find a killer, just search for the missing rounds :)

Outside of that, you can only buy pistols.


Oh, and Switzerland has the 2nd highest handgun murder rate in the industrialised world behind the US.

(Source - http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm )

[March Kalas]

Switzerland has a tiny army, the gun is there for national security. You only have 72 rounds and that's your lot. Pretty easy to find a killer, just search for the missing rounds

Outside of that, you can only buy pistols.


Oh, and Switzerland has the 2nd highest handgun murder rate in the industrialised world behind the US.



the army is probably small because the country is small, and even though the army is small, they sure know how use a gun. Believe me, don't mess with Switzerland. They have battle-ready howitzer cannons hidden in their barns.

I believe the real reason for the high handgun murder rate is because of their stupid foreign policy of, "We don't ask questions." If criminals want to hide, where do you think one of the best places to go is? Switzerland. Where do you think the best place to store stolen money is? Switzerland. The reason the handgun murder rates are that high is for the reason that it doesn't matter if you're a priest or a murderer, they don't care, just go on in. Do you realize how many criminals probably hide themselves in Switzerland?

[AmazonBabe]

Does this mean I can finally get my AK-47 without any problem? :)

EDIT: Oh poo. Just found out CA has it's own stoopid laws against semi-autos. :grumble

[March Kalas]

You could have gotten a semi-automatic version a long time ago. I don't know about full-automatic though.

Can somebody make me clear.

I'm pretty sure that all the ban thing would have accomplished would be not allowing you to use an assault weapon that had 2 or more features from a certain list. The ban was mainly attacking the pistol grip feature of rifles like the semi-automatic version of the AK-47 (I forgot what version this was called though) and the AR-15. The problem was that the pistol grip could easily be replaced with a thumbhole stock and then you could have another feature on the list and the law wouldn't be effective at all. So it was basically pointless enough to just drop it anyway.

shutup Kerry.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by AmazonBabe
EDIT: Oh poo. Just found out CA has it's own stoopid laws against semi-autos. :grumble

Given time, your Governator might do something about that.

;)

[Charley]

Originally posted by March Kalas
You could have gotten a semi-automatic version a long time ago. I don't know about full-automatic though.

Can somebody make me clear.

I'm pretty sure that all the ban thing would have accomplished would be not allowing you to use an assault weapon that had 2 or more features from a certain list. The ban was mainly attacking the pistol grip feature of rifles like the semi-automatic version of the AK-47 (I forgot what version this was called though) and the AR-15. The problem was that the pistol grip could easily be replaced with a thumbhole stock and then you could have another feature on the list and the law wouldn't be effective at all. So it was basically pointless enough to just drop it anyway.

shutup Kerry.

You could get a fully automatic Avtomat Kalashnikov, but the problem is that:

(1) You need $200 off the bat to purchase a Class III firearm tax stamp to be in compliance with the National Firearms Act of 1934

(2) You have to go through miles of legal red tape, and even still, you may not be allowed to get it. The government's going to want to ask a lot of personal questions about you if you do this.

(3) You have to pick a firearm thats been manufactured in 1986 or earlier, to be in compliance with the Reagan gun ban.

(4) To purchase said weapon, you'll need at least ten thousand dollars or more, since they are extremely tough to find.

That makes getting an automatic too much of a pain in the neck for almost anybody.

As for the Assault Weapons Ban rules, it gets really complicated. First, there are nineteen different models of weapons specifically banned by name. AK-47's, AR-15's, Steyr AUG's, Uzi, etc etc etc. Now, these guns were later manufactured under different names (WASR-10, CAR-15, etc) but that is immaterial here. To keep these guns "less scary", they had to comply with a bunch of stupid features rules, and these rules were broken down for pistols, shotguns, and rifles.

For the most part, the rifle rules are the ones that draw the most flak. The ban effected semi-automatic rifles with external magazines that held a maximum of ten rounds. Now, with such a rifle, you could have no more than two of these features:

Muzzle brake
Flash hider
Bayonet lug
Grenade launcher
Pistol grip
Collapsible stock

And if your gun had more than these features, or had magazines with a capacity in excess of ten, it was deemed an illegal assault weapon.

Now, this has a grandfather clause involved, so that you don't violate ex post facto stuff. That means that any assault weapons that are non-compliant to the rules, but are manufactured at or before 1994 are legal to own. The AWB just prevents manufacture of new guns that are non-compliant.

Of course, the ban had to attach a sunset provision to pass in the first place, since it was violently unpopular. And since it has now sunset (ie, expired), the manufacture of noncompliant weapons can begin again.

:)

[Charley]

Originally posted by AmazonBabe
EDIT: Oh poo. Just found out CA has it's own stoopid laws against semi-autos. :grumble

Not against semi-autos per se, but they do have a non-sunsetting assault weapons ban that applies to their own state, and its much more strict than anything Washington passed federally.

The only way to get rid of this is to run Feinstein and her authoritarian sodomite cronies out of your state, and vote the laws out in force.


Originally posted by Figrin D'an
Given time, your Governator might do something about that.

;)

Ah-nold might have held a few guns on the silver screen, but I can assure you that when it comes to protecting second amendment rights, he's nothing more than a Girlie Man.

He complied with Feinstein and the gun grabbers in signing AB-50 into law, which banned .50 caliber rifles for really no reason at all, other than "OMG LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE BULLET". Interestingly, not a single .50 rifle has ever been used in a crime in KKKalifornia in the first place.

More fearmongering legislation, and Ah-nold is A-okay with it. What a sell-out.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Charley
Ah-nold might have held a few guns on the silver screen, but I can assure you that when it comes to protecting second amendment rights, he's nothing more than a Girlie Man.

He complied with Feinstein and the gun grabbers in signing AB-50 into law, which banned .50 caliber rifles for really no reason at all, other than "OMG LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE BULLET". Interestingly, not a single .50 rifle has ever been used in a crime in KKKalifornia in the first place.

More fearmongering legislation, and Ah-nold is A-okay with it. What a sell-out.


I know... it was merely a joke. He's adept at playing the game of politics, just like a certain other former actor/California governor was. It would be extremely difficult for him to push any major changes in California's gun laws... too much of the state has accepted the liberal stance on the issue as the best course.

[March Kalas]

Man, I'm so glad I live in Texas.