Globe Bull Warning
Thomas Oliphant has a Boston Globe "web exclusive" column today making a truly pathetic last-minute argument for the renewal of the Assault Weapons ban scheduled to sunset on Monday after 10 years on the books. Nothing unusual really, just your typical misrepresentations of the facts and flawed reasoning we've come to expect from the proponents of nearly every piece of gun control legislation to come down the pike.
So, when the ban expires, criminals and terrorists will be lining up at gun shops across the country to purchase these weapons? Sorry, Tom, that ain't gonna happen. The criminals and terrorists already have access to any kind of weaponry they desire and can afford.
What the NRA is against is the government's trampling on the rights of American citizens as protected by the United States Constitution. But why let some pesky old piece of parchment get in the way of your political agenda? And to say the ban has worked? Can you offer something to substantiate that claim. An independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) had this to say on the matter:
And then there's this piece on a recent review of gun control legislation by the darlings of the gun control movement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
The citing of the nationwide decrease in crime, that the AWB supporters are so enamored of, took place over a period of time which also witnessed many states adopting "shall issue" concealed carry laws making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection. You'll never hear Dianne Feinstein arguing that angle.
To claim the Assault Weapons Ban is directly responsible for any decrease in violent crime is akin to claiming FM radio waves cause cancer. Just look at the cancer rate in this country since the invention of FM radio. Scary, huh? Anyway, back to Mr. Oliphant's column.
Way to misinterpret a partial quote, put it in print, and expect it to be eaten up by the commoners flocking outside your window just waiting for some table scraps of truth to be thrown their way. That is SO 1990. What Cheney said was that a vote for Kerry/Edwards would set the stage for a limp-wristed, Clintonesque, hand-holding, let's-all-express-our-inner-feelings response to the next terrorist attack on American soil. It's also the reason John Kerry will be my senator for another four years.
This is the biggest piece of nonsensical, misleading, flat-out untrue pile of crap I've read in a long time. Do you honestly believe, Mr. Oliphant, that terrorists and criminals are hoping that law-abiding citizens will have the ability to purchase these weapons to defend their homeland and families against their criminal intentions?
Hardened violent criminals are among the biggest supporters of all types of gun control. It significantly lowers the risk of bodily harm they might otherwise encounter while pursuing their craft. Check out the murder rates in Washington DC and Chicago - two gun-free utopias. End of argument. There isn't one piece of legislation that will prevent an individual intent on murder from carrying out his plan.
But wait a minute? Just four paragraphs ago you referred to the AWB as "a ban that has worked". How was this individual able to shoot up his neighborhood with a high-capacity magazine on his gun? I thought the ban worked. It couldn't be that people like this have absolutely no respect for the law or the lives of others, could it? As we have seen recently in Russia, there are people in this world to whom raping and killing children is of little moral consequence. These people can not be reasoned with, nor can their behavior be altered through legislation.
Again, don't let logical thought get in your way, Tom, you're on a roll, baby! Are you honestly afraid of bayonets flooding the streets. Can you cite ONE instance of a bayonet attack in recent history? I can go to Home Depot today and buy several tools with considerably more potential destructive capability than a bayonet.
Well, you missed the boat here too. Flash suppressors merely direct the muzzle flash horizontally out the sides of the muzzle opening and out of the line of sight of the shooter, preventing temporary blindness from the muzzle flash. Seems that would be a safety feature when using such a firearm for defensive purposes. Isn't the Brady Bunch supposed to be pro-gun safety now?
And nice move there trying to tie the 2nd Amendment to the "needs" of hunters. Too bad the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Consitution, has nothing to do with hunting or with one's "needs" where a gun's cosmetic features are concerned.
OK, this is getting tiresome. Let's go to the closer. Mr. Oliphant really hits a home run here.
Remember, though, it's the eeeevil Republicans who are the party of fear-mongering.
(some links "borrowed" from Say Uncle - thanks)
As any trained terrorist or criminal knows, Sept. 13 is a banner day this year, the moment when assault weapons will once again be legal after a decade of government controls on these weapons of choice.
So, when the ban expires, criminals and terrorists will be lining up at gun shops across the country to purchase these weapons? Sorry, Tom, that ain't gonna happen. The criminals and terrorists already have access to any kind of weaponry they desire and can afford.
The National Rifle Association, which hates government control above all, will also be celebrating the apparently inevitable expiration of a ban that has worked.
What the NRA is against is the government's trampling on the rights of American citizens as protected by the United States Constitution. But why let some pesky old piece of parchment get in the way of your political agenda? And to say the ban has worked? Can you offer something to substantiate that claim. An independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) had this to say on the matter:
We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,
And then there's this piece on a recent review of gun control legislation by the darlings of the gun control movement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws - including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons - found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.
The citing of the nationwide decrease in crime, that the AWB supporters are so enamored of, took place over a period of time which also witnessed many states adopting "shall issue" concealed carry laws making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection. You'll never hear Dianne Feinstein arguing that angle.
To claim the Assault Weapons Ban is directly responsible for any decrease in violent crime is akin to claiming FM radio waves cause cancer. Just look at the cancer rate in this country since the invention of FM radio. Scary, huh? Anyway, back to Mr. Oliphant's column.
Unlike desperate demagogues like Dick Cheney this week, I wouldn't dream of taking the obvious cheap shot of linking my ideological opponents to terrorists and criminals (as Cheney did by saying that the wrong vote in November could set the stage for another attack on the United States).
Way to misinterpret a partial quote, put it in print, and expect it to be eaten up by the commoners flocking outside your window just waiting for some table scraps of truth to be thrown their way. That is SO 1990. What Cheney said was that a vote for Kerry/Edwards would set the stage for a limp-wristed, Clintonesque, hand-holding, let's-all-express-our-inner-feelings response to the next terrorist attack on American soil. It's also the reason John Kerry will be my senator for another four years.
It's more accurate to say that the NRA's antigovernment ideology along with terrorists and criminals have a coincidental but identical hope where the 10-year-old assault weapons ban is concerned.
This is the biggest piece of nonsensical, misleading, flat-out untrue pile of crap I've read in a long time. Do you honestly believe, Mr. Oliphant, that terrorists and criminals are hoping that law-abiding citizens will have the ability to purchase these weapons to defend their homeland and families against their criminal intentions?
Hardened violent criminals are among the biggest supporters of all types of gun control. It significantly lowers the risk of bodily harm they might otherwise encounter while pursuing their craft. Check out the murder rates in Washington DC and Chicago - two gun-free utopias. End of argument. There isn't one piece of legislation that will prevent an individual intent on murder from carrying out his plan.
On the Senate floor this week, the mother of the ban, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, offered an example of what America can look forward to. A fellow appeared on the street in the small, northern Ohio town of Geneva this week with what is now an illegal 50-bullet clip on his gun and started shooting - less than 200 yards from an elementary school.
But wait a minute? Just four paragraphs ago you referred to the AWB as "a ban that has worked". How was this individual able to shoot up his neighborhood with a high-capacity magazine on his gun? I thought the ban worked. It couldn't be that people like this have absolutely no respect for the law or the lives of others, could it? As we have seen recently in Russia, there are people in this world to whom raping and killing children is of little moral consequence. These people can not be reasoned with, nor can their behavior be altered through legislation.
In addition, a well-known Illinois gun company, ArmaLite, is pushing consumers not only to order assault weapons now for shipment after the ban expires, but also to add bayonets and even flash suppressors to their weapons.
Again, don't let logical thought get in your way, Tom, you're on a roll, baby! Are you honestly afraid of bayonets flooding the streets. Can you cite ONE instance of a bayonet attack in recent history? I can go to Home Depot today and buy several tools with considerably more potential destructive capability than a bayonet.
I can't quite figure out how a flash suppressor helps a hunter just because the deer can't see where the shot is coming from, but it sure helps a crook, which is why they were previously banned.
Well, you missed the boat here too. Flash suppressors merely direct the muzzle flash horizontally out the sides of the muzzle opening and out of the line of sight of the shooter, preventing temporary blindness from the muzzle flash. Seems that would be a safety feature when using such a firearm for defensive purposes. Isn't the Brady Bunch supposed to be pro-gun safety now?
And nice move there trying to tie the 2nd Amendment to the "needs" of hunters. Too bad the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Consitution, has nothing to do with hunting or with one's "needs" where a gun's cosmetic features are concerned.
OK, this is getting tiresome. Let's go to the closer. Mr. Oliphant really hits a home run here.
The ban, however, will expire. Bush will get his endorsement. And people are going to die.
Remember, though, it's the eeeevil Republicans who are the party of fear-mongering.
(some links "borrowed" from Say Uncle - thanks)
