Second Amendment Foundation Condemns ABC News Fraud in Report

[Nambe]

BELLEVUE, Wash. - 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. ..

"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." ..

[Zynx]

1. Damn right that's fraud.

Worthless scare tactics cause me to lose all respect for the gun control crowd.

Maybe if legitimate information and arguments were presented, gun owners (who KNOW how guns actually work), wouldn't think the gun control people wanted to take away all firearms.

[MrBenchley]

4. Funny...if the gun rights bunch didn't have such scummy playmates

or depend on outright deception like this, I might have some respect for them...but I don't.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

11. 15 minutes and a file will turn many semi autos into fully automatic.

(The Mini 14 for one).

Just as a side note, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the maximum clip size remaining 10. Gives you more time to hide when disgruntled worker reloads more often.

Or we could take the NRA's stance and make sure everyone in the office is packing at least a semi .223. Sure would make the board meetings and cocktail hours more interesting.

[Radius]

13. 10 in federal pound me in the ass prison

Is what you get for filing a sear. It also may ruin a good weapon. the mini-14 was not designed to be a select fire rifle. Making it one could have unpleasant side effects.

For $200 you can get a tax stamp and a rifle that was designed to be select fire. To date no legally registered class 3 weapon has been used in a crime.

The same argument goes to making ANFO. Just takes a few minutes.

The kits to convert a weapon can be purchased and installed but most people can't change their own oil never mind modify a firearm to a Machine Gun.

There are already bezillions of magazines on the market and there is no way to get them back.

[DoNotRefill]

18. guns that took 15 minutes and a file....

to convert to full auto were banned from production in 1982. The current standard is 8 hours in a machineshop. If it takes less time than that to convert, federal administrative law states that it's automatically classified as a machinegun and is banned.

So, in other words, the guns that are becoming "un-banned" aren't susceptable to conversion...it'd be easier to simply make a new gun.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

31. I give up. Guns are good. If everyone had a gun, we'd all be safe

and there would be no more violent death except for all the baddies...
And the four year olds that splatter their brains all over the wall when they find Mom's Glock. (Happened here last week). The vast majority of Americans are not responsible. The vast majority of Americans are STUPID. Just look at the last Washington Post polls on Bush's support. Guns are made for killing. More guns=more killing. It's kind of hard to wipe out a crowd with a box of rocks.

MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!
MORE GUNS!

It's the American way!

[DoNotRefill]

34. You do realize that more children drown around the house...

in 5 gallon buckets than are accidentally killed by guns annually, right? For the last year that figures are available, the government says there were fewer than 800 accidental firearms deaths TOTAL in the US, of all ages.

BTW, how do you think an undecided voter, reading your description of him or her, is going to vote in 2 months? Way to win the hearts and minds, bucko...

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

36. I'd LOVE to see documentation on kids drowning in buckets VS

firearms.

Personally, I don't give a fuck what they think. My personal opinion of gun freaks is such that I'd rather they lived on a different planet or at least went to the special ring of hell that I feel Dante would have described had he been witness to this shit.

But, hey. That's just me.

[DoNotRefill]

38. Maybe you should define "gun freaks"...

when you say that, do you mean somebody who owns a gun?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

46. That's a Limbaugh argument... Mebbe Hannity...

You IGNORED the question.

[DoNotRefill]

48. I'm sorry, you had a question? Please ask it....

in a non-obfuscatory manner, and I'll try to answer it, if it doesn't take too long. Also, please leave out the ranting about how stupid the people are that we're trying to get to vote for our candidate.

[Just Me]

54. Here,...I'll try to define a "gun freak",...

,...someone who, against the face of facts, would represent that more children die in five-gallons of water than from guns.

Preposterous.

Of course, since you asserted such an absurdity, you have the burden of proving it. I have common sense on my side.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

55. Sure: "I'd LOVE to see documentation on kids drowning in buckets VS

firearms."

Cut and pasted from the original. I guess because it wasn't in the proper form of a question it escaped the infallible logic of the great new daddy Donotrefill...

Is there a problem with prescription medicine here?

[DoNotRefill]

57. FYI:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:S.799.IS:

Exerpt:

"The Congress finds that: (1) Since 1985, approximately 400 infants have drowned in 4-gallon to 6-gallon buckets, or nearly 1 child a week."

A little further down, you'll see that they say 80% of the infants that drown in this manner are between 8 and 13 months old.

From: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_12.pdf

Look on page 16 of 40 under accidents (unintentional injuries):

"accidental discharge of firearm: 808 <snip>
accidental drowning and submersion: 3,343"

This isn't for infants, that's total.

From http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drown.htm

"Children: In 2001, 859 children ages 0 to 14 years died from drowning (CDC 2003). While drowning rates have slowly declined (Branche 1999), drowning remains the second-leading cause of injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2003)"

"Children under age one most often drown in bathtubs, buckets, or toilets (Brenner et al. 2001)."


So, you can see that more children under 14 drowned in 2001 than the TOTAL number of people who died of accidental gunshot wounds in 2001. But that still isn't the bucket rate. I'm still trying to find stats on the number of infants (defined as a child under 1 year of age) that die accidentally by gunshot wounds...

Ah, here we go, from WISQUARS: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Select for category 1: Unintentional
Select for category 2: Drowning
Leave Section 3 alone (all)
Section 4, select custom, >1 to 1

And you get:

"2001, United States
Unintentional Drowning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 1
ICD-10 Codes: W65-W74"

Number of deaths=250
Population=7,898,415
crude rate=3.17"

Now go back, and change "drowning" to "firearm" in Category 2. Leave the rest the same. And you get:

"2001, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 1
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34

Number of deaths=1*
Population: 7,898,415
crude rate=0.01*"

With the * meaning "* Rates based on 20 or fewer deaths may be unstable. Use with caution."

So, there you go. The top link says that around one infant a week drowns in a "4 to 6 gallon bucket". And CDC says that 1 infant was accidentally shot and killed in 2001.

Any questions?


Oh, yes, in order to get to the "1 a week" figure (that's there for bucket drownings) for accidental firearms deaths that's there in the "infant drowning in a bucket" factoid from congress, you need to look at all children from 0-12 years old. Again, according to the CDC. Just back up, set it up for firearms in Section 2, and for ages 0 to 12 in custom age, and you get 52. So, in 2001, approximately the same number of infants drowned in buckets as children that were not teenagers were accidentally shot and killed.

Oh, another interesting fact: To get to the 250 total accidental drownings that we saw for the 0-1 year olds for firearms, we need to include all "children" under the age of 22. It's not until you hit all "children" younger than 23 years old that the accidental death rate from firearms exceeds the rate of drownings for children between the ages of 0 and 1.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

59. I went to your site and asked drownings...

It said 3,923 for 2001

I asked Fire arms and it said 29,573.

What the fuck are you smoking?

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

[DoNotRefill]

61. Try it again, and actually follow the directions in my post.

It looks like you selected both accidents and deliberate, and all age groups, not the age groups in question. In short, your figures are for all drownings, and all gun deaths, including suicides, homicides, and accidents.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

63. I don't think you're worth wasting that much time on...

I went for totals. 10 times the # of deaths from firearms than drowninings.

Well, duh.

[DoNotRefill]

64. BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink....or, apparently, make him follow pretty simple, explicit directions.

You, Sir, asked for evidence. You were quite specific. I provided it. It's quite specific. The evidence, from a non-partisan source (which I define as one not a part of either a pro gun group like the NRA or an anti-gun group like the VPC or Several Hundred Mom March) shows that you're wrong, and I'm right. At which point, your response is "it's not worth it, screw you guys, I'm going home."

Sweet!!!! :crazy:

[DoNotRefill]

62. Just for you, I'm going to run through this one more time.

You might want to print this out to make things easier for you.


Click on this link.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

There are three options, and then some advanced features at the bottom.

In the first category, which says

"1. What was the intent or manner of the injury? (Select one)"

Put your mouse on the second circle down, which reads "unintentional". Click it, and make sure a little green dot appears in the circle.

Next, go to section 2, where it reads:

"2. What was the cause or mechanism of the injury? (Select one)"

there's a two column list of causes. Go down to the seventh circle in the lefthand column, which reads "drowning", and click on that circle until you have a green dot next to "drowning".

Leave section three alone.

Scroll down to "advanced options", where it says "select age groups". Put the cursor over the third option (custom age range), and click until you have a green dot there. Then put the cursor into the SECOND box, and change ">1" to "1" by clicking on the down arrow and going down to "1".

Down at the very bottom, there's a button that says "submit request". Click on it. It will take you to a new screen.

this will give you the rate of drownings for children between birth and 1 year old that drowned that year, which is 250. With me so far?

OK, now hit the back button on your browser ONCE. This will take you to the screen we were at a moment ago.

Now go back to section 2, where you clicked "drowning", and there's a little green dot in the circle next to "drowning". Count down SIX spots in the left hand column, and click on the circle next to "firearms". Leave EVERYTHING ELSE THE SAME. Scroll back down to the "submit request" button, and click it.

This will take you to a new screen, and will show you the number of accidental frearms deaths for children aged between "0" and "1", and will show that in that year, there was 1* such death. With me so far? Do you need me to explain the rest, or do you have it now?

Thanks,
DNR.

[DoNotRefill]

58. BTW...

I'm a lot more concerned about my 2 month old accidentally drowning than I am about my two month old accidentally finding one of my guns in my locked gun safe, getting the heavier than 1 ton gun safe open, finding the appropriate ammunition from the cabinet, loading the gun, and accidentally shooting herself.

Silly me....

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

60. Cool. So the guy with the "MORAN" sign is as careful?

[sffreeways]

74. I'd like to tell the undecided voter something

My son, a Marine, an Eagle Scout, Lt. Firefighter, on and on, he was a vibrant happy 21 year old until another kid took his legally licensed and registered gun from him and shot him in the face with it. Now he's dead. Oh and the kid wasn't a criminal either, he 'was' a friend, until the gun was involved.

Dear undecided voter (undecided on what guns ?) take it from a mother who knows, guns are bad.

Fortunately the second ammendment gun nut crowd didn't stop me from protecting him from pools and buckets of water so I had him until he was 21.

[GizDog]

75. which one

of these rifles is a legally assembled carbine and which one is an "Assault Weapon"?

[GOPFighter]

22. If gun enthusiasts could find a way to minimize gun violence....

...maybe those of us who don't own guns and don't know much about guns, and don't particularly WANT to know about guns, wouldn't support stricter gun control measures.

If you want to keep the staus quo when it comes to gun ownership then find a way to keep gun-owners from shooting innocent people.

It's a pretty simple concept, really.

[Radius]

28. Europe

I spent a summer in europe and was amazed that citizens in switzerland could own select fire (automatic) rifles.

Yet there was no violent crime.

I live in a farm town, lots of guns, no murders. In YEARS.
Visit NYC on business no legal guns and somebody made the news once a night. May have been a bad week but how do you explain the difference?

[northzax]

32. um, that's a bit disingenuous, you know?

The only people who get to own assaut weapons in Switzerland are those who have spent two years in the military learning how to use them. and, you will no doubt also have noted, they are not issued ammunition, expect for the times they renew their training on the gun. Every adult Citizen in Switzerland is in the Military, that's a big difference from any yahoo walking to wal-mart and buying an AK-47.

Just out of curiosity, is your farm town basically economically, socially and racially homogenous? Is there any crime at all?

Look, the gun-nuts are completely correct, guns don't kill people, they just make it a whole hell of a lot easier to do so.

[DoNotRefill]

39. which means...

"The only people who get to own assaut weapons in Switzerland are those who have spent two years in the military learning how to use them."

practically every Swiss household has a machinegun in it, yes? After all, if it has a male of that age category (something like 20-45) living there, by law they have to have a machinegun, right? Of course, once the person completes their military reserve duty and is, in effect, "retired", they keep their rifles for free, yes?

"and, you will no doubt also have noted, they are not issued ammunition, expect for the times they renew their training on the gun."

They are issued a 200 round sealed "spam can" of ammo, which they are not allowed to use for any reason except a military invasion. These are serialized, and must be presented at drill, intact. Of course, if a Swiss person wants to SHOOT their gun for practice, recreation, or whatever, they can just go to a gun store and buy their own ammo. Also, if a swiss person wants to go on a shooting rampage, they could expect to be punished for breaking open their "spam can" of ammo, but somehow, I doubt the punishment for breaking open their issued ammo is more severe than the penalty for mass murder. I could be wrong, though.

"Every adult Citizen in Switzerland is in the Military, that's a big difference from any yahoo walking to wal-mart and buying an AK-47."

Read the Federal Militia Act sometime. Odds are pretty good that you're in the "unorganized" militia of the US. Remember, due to the Civil Rights Act, it doesn't just apply to men, it applies to women in that age range too.

[northzax]

67. I have no problem with anyone who has gone through two years of training

on how to use an assault rifle, and the impacts of the use of said weapon being able to keep it. I have no problem with members of the National Guard having an Armalite at home; I have no problems with members of the military possessing m-16s. Thay are not the problem. Sure, some may use their weapons innapropriately, but I would like to see statistics comparing violent crime rates, using firearms, of military veterans and non-military veterans. Indeed, some veterans use their skills to murder people, but I wager it's much lower than an equivalent population of non-veterans.

training matters. You want to own an assault rifle? great. Go spend two years learning how to use it. Heck, the government will even pay you a salary while you're doing it. can't beat that deal.

[DoNotRefill]

68. You miss the point...

you're already part of the militia.

BTW, are you REALLY advocating mandatory government service to exercise a constitutionally enumerated civil right?

[northzax]

72. but I haven't received my training, so I guess I'm AWOL

hey, I should run for president!

and yes, I am advocating that certain powers (including, but not limited to: the power to incarcerate, the power to confiscate etc) can be reserved by the government for itself. it's part of living inacivil society. The consitution oftimes needs to be changed to reflect modern reality and sensibilities. We cannot draw on the intent of the founders since their world means nothing to us, and our worldcertainly would mean nothing to them. Thomas Jefferson would no doubt be annoyed to learn, upon his ressurection, that his slaves had been taken away. And yet, if he lived now, he would never have thought he could have slaves. I'm sure John Hancock would be suprised to see women voting. And yet, due to cultural shifts, the same man born today would never think that women shouldn't vote.

it all comes down to one thing: they didn't know what we know. I find it highly unlikely that George Washington would look on the devastation of our cities caused by gun violence and think that this is a good idea. The 2nd amendment was obviously intended to allow property owners to carry guns (since every other right was ennumerated to them) They didn't intend for women to carry them, they didn't intend for children to carry them, and they certainly didn't intend for blacks to carry them.

But instead of recognition that enough has changed in the past 200+ years to allow us to alter certain ennumerated rights to reflect modern reality, you insist on keeping this one right, an artifact of a completely different society, unchanged. The Founders lived in a homogenous, rural, agrarian society dominated by a white, male, protestant, landowning, hereditary elite, and made laws good for them. Maybe it's time to make some new laws, reflecting our urban, post-industrial, multi-ethnic and open society?

by the way, I lived in Switzerland, and it is one of the single most oppresive, homogenous developed nations in the world. much closer in tone to the world of Sam Adams than John Kerry.

[DoNotRefill]

77. the swiss are oppressive?

I didn't get that vibe from them at all. Homogeneous, yes, oppressive, no.

"Maybe it's time to make some new laws, reflecting our urban, post-industrial, multi-ethnic and open society?"

We've slowly (too slowly) been extending rights to minorities and women in this country that had previously been restricted to the white male landowners. The one right so often NOT extended to them (and a reason behind the infamous Dred Scott decision) is the right to keep and bear arms. My position is that we need to have everybody be able to exercise their rights. It's often said that the gun control movement doesn't want to take guns away from the white affluent skeet shooters or the poor white people who hunt to supplement their larder. That's another way of saying that the white folks can keep their right to keep and bear arms, but that minorities are still not ready for that right. That, to me, is BEYOND repugnant. I don't know how much you know about gun laws, but the primary gun law still being enforced is the National Firearms Act of 1934, which is a Jim Crow law in both spirit or substance. Can you name a SINGLE other law which requires a person wishing to exercise their rights to go to their chief of police or Sheriff and have him sign a piece of paper saying that the head cop doesn't object? In ANY other area of the law, people would be FROTHING at the mouth over this. It's every bit as repugnant as a voting literacy test. In another example, during the 1940's, the Florida Supreme court ruled that a white man couldn't be convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The reason they gave? Because the legislature intended the law only to disarm minorities. I'm not kidding, they actually said that.

The anti-gun groups mostly say that they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands". "The wrong hands" seem to be almost exclusively black urban hands. I, on the other hand, support everybody having the same rights, and those rights being as widely interpreted as is possible. for me, it's just as much a matter of civil rights as voting is.

[Radius]

40. Home

Is a mix of everyone. Wealthy, poor. High minority populations, hispanic and black, but most are employed by manufacturing or Ari jobs.

There is crime, property, and violent crime, rape, robbery, drug crime.

People just don't murder each other much. I live north of Raleigh, NC

I don't own any "assault weapons" but think the ban is pointless. I don't think people should be able to buy a gun without a background check. I don't think people should buy class 3 stuff in Wilmar. But legal class 3 guns have never been used in any crimes.

My point was that most gun crime has social issues as a root cause.

Banning all guns, handguns, or the guns in benchleys bill will guarantee a loss in November. No way around that.

[derby378]

2. That's pretty rank

Randi Rhodes to Ralph Nader on 3/31: "We can't afford you!"

Me to the Assault Weapon Ban: "What Randi said!"

[MrBenchley]

3. Who cares what those right wing fuckwits think?

"These guns had been illegally modified, yet ABC News left the impression that such rifles will be available to the general public."
Well, duh....that's exactly what assault weapons are...easy to modify.

By the way, this bunch is the direct descendant of the old Young Americans for Freedom bunch of right wing fuckwits...

[Beansie]

9. Ummm

Actually Jennings is a self described liberal. Unfortunately distortions happen on both sides.

[MrBenchley]

19. Actually....I don't think Jennings distorted a thing....

but the Second Amendment Fuckwits have always been a walloping load of bollocks....

[Radius]

12. Easy to modify

Any moron can easily modify diesel fuel and fertilizer into high explosives. Ahh better ban it. You can go to the grocery store and buy two chemicals capable of killing a room full of people.

Actually it is not easy to modify an "assault weapon". It requires significant knowledge of gunsmithing and parts. Parts that are not readily available. These guns are rarely used in crime because they can not be concealed and require more skill to use than a shotgun or a pistol.

It also carries a 10 year mandatory federal sentence, just to posses a MACHINE GUN.

BTW the average time served for 2nd degree rape is far less.

You really dont like gun possession do you?

[Zynx]

14. No he doesn't.

n/t

[MrBenchley]

17. Hey, the most famous guy who made them into an explosive

hung out for years at gun shows and didn't seem any crazier than the run of the mill fuckwits there....



"You really dont like gun possession"
No, I just don't care much for dishonest right wing crap.

[Radius]

20. BAN BAN BAN

Better ban Diesel fuel before someone does it again. Oh ban clorox, lead acid batteries, and a list as long as my arm of house hold chemicals that can be used to kill masses of people.

s1431 is a deathblow to the Kerry/Edwards campaign. You understand that, right. Not that bill will ever make it anywhere because it is written with language that would ban the 11-87 shotgun. Ban any semi auto with a grip, dumbest thing I have ever heard.

[MrBenchley]

21. Sounds good to me, and MoveOn and 75% of voters...

"s1431 is a deathblow to the Kerry/Edwards campaign. You understand that, right."
I understand that the gun nuts creaming their jeans over getting their sweaty, shaky hands on assault weapons hate it....but those loonies weren't going to vote Democratic since Strom left the party.

"dumbest thing I have ever heard"
Naw...you should visit one of the gun loony forums like highroad.org....those people are both shit-stupid and outright liars.

[Radius]

24. Assault Whats?

That is a made up scare word. A unicorn.

You mean these that have been legal under the ban?
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/bushmaster308.asp


or this which would be banned under that idiotic bill that will never get out of committee. BTW John Kerry used this to shoot skeet and got one as a gift. You start fucking with mainstream america's sporting arms and see what happens.

http://www.remington.com/firearms/shotguns/1187sps_smg.htm

Look it has a "grip" ban it.

I'll buy my lottery tickets and you bet on that bill. I've got a better chance.

[bobbyboucher]

27. Let me help you out Mr. Benchley,

Those chemicals and other such stuff on your hysterical "maybe we should ban these too" list are all usefull tools of modern day life. Assault weapons are in no way a necessity or even of any use at all to the common everyday law abiding human being.

Ban em.

[Radius]

33. Assault weapons

his bill 1431

Section SEC. 2; (H) (ii) and (b)(42): "The term 'pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip."

This applies to every firearm, including "good" guns like the 11-87 shotgun. Because the law was written by people who don't know anything about guns.

Good thing your views are not reality and this bill and the ban will drift off into the sunset. If this gets play before elections better get used to 4 more years, bet on it.

Gun control is a losing issue. Most people are murdered with cheap pistols anyway. This is a joke issue that has no effect.

[Trashman]

45. You are wrong

You and Benchley are wrong again as usual. Please try to not let your emotions, fears, and ignorance of firearms sway you from the true facts.

BTW, we all know JF Kerry owns guns, does that make him a "Fuckwit" Benchley, or does that term only apply to people who believe that the 2nd amendment refers to the people?

[MrBenchley]

69. I'd say fuckwit is an apt term for gun crazies

"we all know JF Kerry owns guns"
Gee, he supports the AWB, and closing the gun show loophole. But then he's not a lying right wing loony.

[NickB79]

53. I use mine to hunt and shoot targets as recreation

Those are both perfectly legal, acceptable uses of a firearm, and thus make them very useful tools in MY modern-day life, as they are to millions of Americans. Just because you don't use them as such doesn't mean they have no legitimate uses.

[GOPAgainstGW]

5. Send the all SAF members to Iraq where they can really have gun fun!!!

[MrBenchley]

7. Exactly....

[comradebillyboy]

6. the simple facts are

1. the assault weapons ban was cosmetic
2. actual assault weapons have been unavailable to the general public for quite a long time any way
3. most americans don't like the idea of too much gun control, its a loser political issue.

so why waste political capital on a cosmetic measure that will be totally ineffective and just piss us gun nuts off.

[Zynx]

10. Because antis are either

a. Illogical
b. Uneducated
c. Out to confiscate all guns
d. a and b.
e. b and c
f. a and c
g. a, b, and c.
h. Possibly well intentioned, but still a and b.

ph33r the .50 Cal sniper rifle!

[bobbyboucher]

30. Awhh, are we going to take away your toys?

What will you play with?

[GOPFighter]

25. All gun control bills are cosmetic

once the NRA gets done with them. They gut them and then crow about how ineffectula they are and that they are just feel-good laws. We don't want to piss anyone off, we just want to feel safer in America with having to arm evyfricken member of our family. when my daughter was 16, she got her first job at a drug store in a small shopping center that suffered a fair number of armed robberies. When i expressed concern to one gun owner, he blasted me for not requiring my daughter be armed at work. This is not my idea of freedom.

Only in America...

[DoNotRefill]

8. I saw Tweety last night...

talk to the police chief of LA and Wayne LaPierre last night.

The Chief also basically said that they were talking about the guns used in the Bank of America shootout (which were machineguns) being put on the street, and LaPierre didn't call him on it. That's proof, at least, that LaPierre is an idiot...

[jtb33]

15. ROFL!

Really? I didn't see that. Could he have called him on that but just have that part edited out as "not important"?

[MrBenchley]

16. Oh no, poor Wayne victimized by the liberal media?

Good thing the RKBA cause isn't all right wingers or anything....(snicker)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

56. Yes it is and there are those here at DU who think that the Ban...

is nonsense. The ban is needed and I am sorry to see it expire.

[stepnw1f]

23. Fuck Your Gun Fanatical Rights

Your guns (WEAPONS used To KILL) endanger everyone's life. It's one thing to have a right, but when it endangers others, go screw fruitcakes.

[Radius]

26. Poor Skeet

I feel so sorry for them. They don't have a chance.

Shit cellphones in cars scare me more.

[DoNotRefill]

29. So....I take it you're not voting for Kerry?

[Radius]

35. I am

He is a sport shooter.
He should be wearing ear and eye protection however. 12ga is LOUD.

Edit: realize response was to top user. Edit subj.

[Paladin]

37. Look Who's Talking.......

[DoNotRefill]

41. Dear Paladin:

Please show me where I've EVER said I will not vote for Kerry. In fact, just yesterday, in a response to another post of yours, I gave the reasons why I'm voting for Kerry. Do you need me to give you a link?

[sofa king]

42. You know what happens if you ban them all, right?

All guns in America just disappear in a puff of pink smoke, never to be used again. People who do try to keep guns after the ban still dutifully register their illegal firearms with the authorities, so they are just as easy to track in an outlawed future as they are today.

The American media will immediately step back from fostering a climate of violence and fear, because once guns are outlawed, Americans won't positively respond to news of violence.

Seriously, people. There are 100 million guns out there in America today. You can pack one in cosmoline with a couple of clips, bury it under your porch stoop, and your great-great-great grandson will be able to dig it up, clean it off, and use it. You will never get rid of firearms in the United States.

That gives you two basic choices: you can tolerate the evil of their existence and try to palliate the situation with responsible enforcement and regulation, or you can create an enormous black market where just as with drugs there are no age or competency barriers to acquiring firearms.

I have my own opinions on the expiration of the Brady bill, but that opinion is secondary to my opinion that this issue is clouded by so much ignorance and wishful thinking on both sides that we should consider ourselves lucky that a few scary looking guns will once again be available to the public.

Because quite honestly, I think that if either side got its way on this issue, things would be much, much worse.

[sybylla]

43. Well said!

Thanks for your two cents. It saved me the trouble.

[DoNotRefill]

44. One minor nitpick....

there are 80 million to 100 million legal gun owners in the US, ALL of whom are eligible to vote (if they aren't eligible to vote, they're not legally allowed to own guns). There are 300 million guns in the US.

[John219]

47. Well they enjoy lieing

But most of America is not stupid enough to belive their crap.

Fact is alot of Americans want the ban to expire.

Here they are and it would appear that most people support the AW ban expiring:

__repeatvote_912.htm

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/3713150/detail.html
Yes. Military-style firearms should be banned. 4851 29%
No. People have the right to own any firearm they want. 11998 71%


http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/3713166/detail.html
Should Congress renew the federal ban on assault weapons?
Choice Votes Percentage of 16844 Votes
Yes. Military-style firearms should be banned. 4851/29%
No. People have the right to own any firearm they want. 11993/71%


http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/10738.exclude.html


John

[PROGRESSIVE1]

49. The Gun Nuts are at it again!

Keep the streets safe, support the AWB!!!

[FeebMaster]

50. It's a little late to worry about supporting the AWB.

It's done for.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Let his bad and stupid law die on Monday, as it should!

Ooooh, spare me the gun grabbing hysterics! The world won't come to an end when this ill-conceived and idiotic law dies a well deserved death this coming Monday. Instead of wringing our collective hands babbling the guns-are-evil mantra, we should all take advantage of this fresh breadth of freedom by purchasing some weapons with flash suppressors and lots of firepower. Believe me, we should never let the rightwing outgun us!

If you are gay or lesbian, the more reason why you should be better armed than the homophobic Bible-thumping dipshits that get their jollies by terrifying the GLBTs.

While you are exercising your Constitutional right to bear arms, nourish your intellect by reading some of the works of Rosa Luxemburg such as Reform or Revolution and the The Junius Pamphlet.

"Gun control is the theory that Matthew Shepherd hanging from a fence post in Wyoming is morally superior to Matthew Shepherd explaining to the local sheriff how his attackers got those fatal bullet wounds."



http://www.pinkpistols.org/

[DoNotRefill]

52. Are you sure you want to jump in on this?

After all, somebody's liable to call you some really terrible things, say that you can't POSSIBLY be a good progressive if you think that the word "people" doesn't mean "the State" in the Second Amendment, tell you that you're "pimping for Bill Frist", inform you that the Pink Pistols are really just a Republican front group, and chime off about how Ted Rall is just a second-rate cartoonist that we should never listen to...all while managing to not get banned as a disruptor despite hundreds of deleted posts...

In other words, welcome to the fray!!! ;)

[MrBenchley]

70. It's good to see "pro gun democrats" pimping for GOP priorities....

By the way, funny of you to bring up the bogus "Pink Pistols" group...a supposed "gay rights" group that attacks pro gay rights Democrats, tried to disrupt a peaceful Gay Pride parade, and hasn't got a single cross word to say about right wing anti-gay politicians.

[DoNotRefill]

71. Thanks, MrB...

I knew I could count on you....

:loveya:

[MrBenchley]

73. Hey, it's easy...

thanks to the transparent dishonesty of the RKBA cause.....

[IndianaGreen]

76. What if the 9/11 hijackers had to deal with passengers packing weapons?

There would have never been a 9/11!

The sad and pathetic anti-gun advocates are neither liberal, for they care not for people protecting themselves against criminals, nor they are civil libertarians, for they value the power of the State about the power of the citizenry, particularly a well-armed citizenry.

No matter what anyone says, the AWB is dead and it shall never rise again!

[slackmaster]

65. If you really support the AWB where have you been the last 10 years?

I've been actively lobbying my elected representatives to let it expire. Until the last few months nobody who supports the ban said a word in support of it.

Now all of a sudden we're hearing hysterical cries from people who claim to support the ban but didn't do diddly about it until it was too late.

Unless you actively supported the ban for the last 10 years as I have worked to see it end, your whining rights are hereby revoked.

[redqueen]

66. Oh who cares

I'd rather see press releases about when media whores lie about SERIOUS issues (e.g. lies leading up to war, why foreign spies and their helpers aren't being arrested, why those who expose are spies aren't being arrested, etc.)