NYT: Kerry Says Bush Assult Weapons Stance Aids Terrorists

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/politics/campaign/10CND-CAMP.html?hp



ASHINGTON, Sept. 10 — President Bush campaigned today in sections of Appalachia, where he said that his economic and tax policies were turning things around. In St. Louis, Senator John Kerry said the president was helping terrorists by letting a ban on assault weapons expire next week.
<snip>

As he has before, Mr. Bush described the campaign in Iraq as part of a wider assault on terrorism generally, even though no link has been found between the former Baghdad regime and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "When it comes to Iraq, my opponent has more different positions than all his colleagues in the Senate combined," Mr. Bush said. "If he had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be a threat to the security and to the world."

But Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush had weakened the United States' position by not speaking out forcefully about the coming expiration of the ban on assault weapons. Congress enacted a ban on several types of assault weapons in 1994; the ban is due to expire on Monday, with no surge of support for it either on Capitol Hill or in the White House in this election season.
<snip>

HooRaah!

Beat him up on this one, JK... Even 55% of GUN OWNERS believe the Assault Weapons Ban should be extended...not to mention 68% of the American Public.

on the assault weapons ban.

The AWB banned not one single solitary assault weapon. It banned only cosmetics. The only firearms actually named in the bill were/are semi-autos - not assault weapons.

One way or another, you or I won't be affected by Bush and Delay letting the ban lapse. But there's a reason why national law enforcement wants the ban renewed...the bad guys: common thugs and --yes--terrorists need the hi volume, automatic weapons, and as of Monday...they can get them quickly, easily and in quantity at any gunstore.

And, no, I'm not anti-gun...I own rifles and handguns and shoot regurlary.

Bush, Delay and LaPierre are totally off their feed on this one...and Kerry needs to make them pay.

criminalized conversion to automatic

No it didn't. The manufacture of new machine guns has been illegal for civilians since Reagan banned it in 1986.


As for magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, well, there's millions and millions of them out there. The ban only raised the prices on some of the harder to find ones.

Conversion to full automatic was banned by the Firearms Owner Protection Act signed by Reagan in 1986. The AW ban doesn't have ANYTHING to do with automatic weapons.

Manufacture of high capacity clips was banned in 1994. But importation and possession of magazines made before 1994 is still completely legal. Since the AW ban was passed in 1994, hundreds of millions of high-capacity magazines have been imported. All the importer needs to legally import them is a letter from the manufacturer stating that they were made prior to 1994.

Prior to the AW ban, 30 round magazines for the AK-47 and it's semi-automatic "clones" were selling at retail for around $5 each. You can get 30 round AK magazines now, after 10 years of the ban, for around $8. As many as you want. Legally. All over the place.

Today, you can go into most gun stores and buy a "post ban" semi-automatic AK-47 knockoff that was mostly made overseas but has some US-made parts in it for around $350. It will have a full stock, a pistol grip, and possibly a "muzzle break" on it. It will not have a bayonet lug on it. It will take 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 55, and 75 round magazines, which are readily available. Thirty round magazines are going for around $8, and 75 round drums are going for $100. After Monday, you will be able to go into a gun store, plop down your $350, and buy a "post-post-ban" semi-automatic rifle. No kidding, that's what they're calling them. It will not contain the US made parts, but will be dimensionally identical to the "post ban" gun with the EXCEPTION of it having a bayonet lug, and the "muzzle break" possibly being replaced with a "flash suppressor", which is practically identical in design and function to a "muzzle break". The magazine capacity, rate of fire, and power of the round will all remain literally IDENTICAL. The ONLY difference will be the presence of a half-inch square of metal under the barrel that a small knife will attach to. Hence all the semi-facetious references to "random drive-by bayonetings". As for magazines, they should decrease a bit in price, but since it wasn't generally a big increase for rifle magazines, frankly, who cares?

bush hits Kerry, essentially saying Kerry is/will be weak on terra, terra, terra and once again disingenuously links Sept 11th and saddam to top it off and Kerry's come back is to talk about the AWB? An issue few care about and those that do are now less likely to vote for Kerry because he's calling for its renewal? OK color me confused, because I just don't get this strategy. Kerry had been doing a pretty good job polishing his hunter/gun owner credentials up until this point. Why the sudden reversal?

vote this issue.

If your theory (no one cares about AWB) is correct...then why is Bush flip- flopping on it?

he's set this up so that he can claim victory with both sides. He's said he supports the AW ban and will sign it if it gets to his desk. So he can say to the anti-gunners "I support the ban". But he's arranged it so that it will never get to his desk, so the gun nuts will be happy, since hte ban went away.

He's held this position for practically forever. It's called "sitting on the fence".

it appears he's grasping at straws.

This is the wrong thing for him to do. I support his candidacy (because he's not Bush) but this is political suicide.

There's a DoJ study out that shows that the AWB had practically no effect on crime.

This makes sense, since the gun industry simply removed the bayonet lugs from the guns and made them exempt from the ban.

Gun control plays well in parts of the Northeast and in California. It's a political third rail in the rest of the country.