From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 08:06:43 MDT
--- gts <gts_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
You are wrong. Zarella used different TARGETS in his demonstration,
made of different materials, which respond differently to the same
ballistic energy.
Rifles on the banned list do not cause any more damage than rifles not
on the list when firing the exact same ammunition at the same targets.
It is a violation of the laws of physics to do so.
>
> 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.
THis is the crux of the fraud. There are plenty of rifles which can
carry just as much ammo firing the exact same type of ammo which are
not on the banned list, and which are semiautomatic just as those on
the list.
THERE ARE NO AUTOMATIC RIFLES ON THE BANNED LIST!!!! This was also part
of the fraud. Zarella implied that the banned rifles were automatic,
i.e. machine guns. There was not a single machine gun on the list, and
in fact, you can still buy machine guns legally in most states in the
US.
The only things which qualify a rifle for being on the federal banned
list is if it has ALL of the following: a detachable magazine, a pistol
grip, and a bayonet lug. Remove the bayonet lug and it is no longer an
'assault weapon'.
Being 'banned' is purely a matter of cosmetics. If a rifle 'looks'
military, they want it on the banned list, if it isn't already,
irrespective of whether it is actually more dangerous or not.
Whether a rifle 'looks military' has absolutely no bearing on its
utility for hunting (and I'll bet Bernie Parks has never hunted a day
in his life). Moreover, whether a rifle has ONLY a 'sporting purpose'
has never been a test of a rifles legality. The only place where that
was a test was in Nazi Germany under the Reichsgeletsblatt.
>
> 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.
I think you are backwards here. The ban ends in 04, not 94, and the NRA
is not at all upset that the ban is ending, it is the liberals who are
trying to renew it. Senator Feinstein has a bill to renew it, and CNN
is making these misrepresentations in order to scare the public into
clamoring their congresspersons to support Feinsteins bill, which does
more than renew the ban, she expands it to four times as many models of
rifles, as well as lay the groundwork for a ban of ALL high powered
rifles, even bolt action rifles, if they are capable of being used as
sniper rifles.
>
> 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.
Machine guns have NOT been banned since 1934. I own one, and so do tens
of thousands of other law abiding americans, including a number of
other members of this list. The 1934 law is a tax law that imposes a
$200 federal tax on their purchase. Your state may have a local ban on
machine guns, but there is no federal ban.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.blogspot.com/
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/greendragon
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 08:18:23 MDT