From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 11:13:27 MDT
--- gts <gts_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> > --- 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.
>
> Yes, well, that's basically the same idea as using different ammo --
> the charge is that CNN did not make a fair comparison of the kinds of
> damage the two classes of guns can do. However I thought they used
> a bulletproof vest in both tests.
They used a wall of concrete blocks for one, and a bulletproof vest in
the other.
>
> > 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.
>
> Hmm. However that is not necessarily fraud on CNN's part. It could
> merely be an artifact of poorly written legislation; it looks like
> the '94 ban did not cover all the rifles that the authors would
> have intended (in fact I'd guess the original legislation was
> diluted by politicians responding to pressure from the NRA).
No, the original legislation merely specified a list of features, like
collapsible stocks, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, detachable magazines,
and said "You can have any two". Any firearm which has more than that
is an 'assault weapon'.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> "Implied" is a pretty tough thing to prove in court if it's the basis
> of a fraud allegation. Neither you nor LaPierre actually believe
> that CNN stated that the banned weapons are machine guns, so there
> isn't much point in accusing CNN of saying something it didn't say.
Zarella's piece claimed that banned weapons have a higher rate of fire
(they don't) than non-banned rifles, called them 'automatic weapons',
and claimed that they only have military uses. All of these claims are
false and are therefore fraudulent.
>
> > Being 'banned' is purely a matter of cosmetics.
>
> Being banned is also a matter of having larger magazines and having
> semi-automatic firing capacity relative to *some* other weapons
Not true. I can go out and buy legally high capacity magazines for many
non-banned rifles today, capable of carrying as many as 30 rounds. The
only non-semi-automatic rifles on the market are bolt action rifles. I
have two semi-automatics in my own collection, and semi-automatic
rifles make up the majority of legally owned firearms in the US today.
> (though if
> what you're telling me is true, not relative to *all* other weapons).
> I
> agree that the cosmetics issues are absurd but those are not the only
> issues. If they extend the ban then I would expect them to also
> increase the list of banned semi-automatic weapons to include those
> other weapons that skirted past the '94 ban.
But what would be the new criteria? The criteria that Feinstein is
using is exclusively an aesthetic judgement that a firearm 'looks
military'.
In the renewal bill, Feinstein is adding some of Henry Waxman's "Sniper
Weapon" proposals, which will give statute-making authority to the ATF
to decide what calibers are capable of being used as sniper rounds
(essentially ANY ammunition that is any good for hunting would
qualify).
>
> Note that I am not taking sides here. In fact in general I'm on your
> side. I'm just trying to get the facts straight.
>
> > 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
>
> Yes, I wrote that confusing paragraph very late at night and then
> tried to
> correct it in another post. Obviously the NRA does not want the ban
> extended. The NRA is upset because the GOP might nevertheless extend
> the ban
> because the White House has stated that Bush is in favor of extending
> it and might cave into pressure to do so.
While Bill Frist's Senate probably will, the House has no chance of
doing so.
>
> > Machine guns have NOT been banned since 1934. I own one
>
> Somehow it doesn't surprise me to learn that you own a machine gun.
> :)
> However fully automatic weapons do require a special permit, yes?
No. You fill out some tax paperwork and send it in to the ATF with a
$200 purchase tax. They do a background check. While from a theoretical
standpoint, it is treated as a permit, it is not from a strictly legal
sense, since the law is in the tax code, not in the criminal or other
legal codes. If it is a permit, applying for it is asking permission to
pay a tax. How logical is that?
=====
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 - 11:28:33 MDT