From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 04:13:38 MDT
I did some more checking on this subject of "fraud." I'm sure Mike will
correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA has no
basis for accusing CNN of misrepresenting the case against so-called assault
weapons unless he can show that the CNN reporter John Zarrella used more
powerful ammunition in the banned semi-automatic assault weapons than he did
in the non-automatic weapons during his comparison of the two classes of
weapons in the original controversial broadcast.
It seems the only semi-reasonable arguments that gun control advocates can
make against so-called assault weapons is that successive rounds from these
banned guns can be fired more quickly and with less frequent re-loading. The
banned weapons do not necessarily use more lethal ammunition than legal
weapons, but on the other hand the larger magazines and rapid fire
capabilities of the banned semi-automatics certainly do make them better
suited for criminal purposes than non-automatic weapons.
It appears the ten year ban on these so-called assault weapons will expire
in '94. The White House has stated that Bush favors an extension of the ban,
but at this point it appears that neither Bush nor Congress are actually
going to push for an extension. This makes the NRA very upset given that the
GOP controls the White House and Congress and given that the NRA thinks it
controls the GOP. :) It's no wonder that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was so
beside himself in the interview with Kyra Phillips of CNN.
Wayne LaPierre also charges that Zarrella of CNN "implied" that banned
semi-automatic weapons are the same as fully automatic machine guns (which
have been banned since 1934, and are not a matter of dispute) but it's
difficult to charge fraud based on a mere implication.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 04:24:33 MDT