VPC: If AWB expires, won't make difference in gun deaths

"If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another" in "reducing death and injury."
-- Tom Diaz, V.P.C.

Audio a qui:

www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1760128

(For those that can't get the audio; according the the racist, right-wing NPR, it looks like the corrupt gun industry may have finally got to poor Tom)

but it hasn't, no matter how desperately the gotta geta gun fraternity spins......

"VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "The gun industry, which is already exempt from federal health and safety regulation does not deserve protection from civil liability for irresponsible business practices. Congress should focus now on passing an effective assault weapons ban. The gun industry has eviscerated the current ban, putting America's police and public at risk. According to FBI data, from 1998 through 2001 one out of five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon." "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0403immunity.htm

"Adds Rand, "Over the past decade, the gun industry has eviscerated the assault weapons ban to the point where evasion of the law has become an open, cynical joke among gunmakers."

http://www.vpc.org/press/0403awpass.htm

Perhaps that's why voters overwhelmingly want the assault weapons ban renewed and strengthened.

Nobody eviscerated the AWB - It was poorly written.

At least Mr. Diaz recognizes the folly of the existing feature-based restrictions. He has changed his tune BTW - Until very recently he was crying that post-ban weapons are illegal. Now he's openly saying they are perfectly legal. And he admits that there will always be guns in this country.

The big hurdle ban enthusiasts face is designing a functionality-based definition of "assault weapon" that doesn't affect firearms used for purposes widely accepted as legitimate sports. Frankly I don't believe there is any way to do that. A semiauto is a semiauto is a semiauto. They all fire as rapidly as the shooter can pull the trigger, and there are so many sporting firearms already in circulation that take detachable magazines I can't see them ever being all classified as AWs.

Perhaps that's why voters overwhelmingly want the assault weapons ban renewed and strengthened.

Most people who support an AWB are misinformed.

...semi-automatic rifles.

"And he admits that there will always be guns in this country."

And that's what the VPC/Brady/MMM count on... "ignorance is bliss".

True story. A female acquaintance of mine was visiting. She's what I call a "moderate gun-grabber"; as in "people should be allowed to own handguns, but we reigister cars, so why not guns"? (how many times have we heard that?). She had some interest in going to the range with me and had a lot of questions beforehand. I broke out a few of my firearms; handguns and rifles I thought would be best for her to start out on.

One of them was my pre-ban AR-15/M4gery; complete with collapsible stock. I figured that would be a good choice because of it's light weight and low recoil (she's also very short so the collapsible stock
would be a plus). She thought it was pretty cool looking and was surprised at how light it was. I told her it was an AR-15 and pretty much left it at that.

Fast forward a couple of weeks. I was over at her place and for some reason the subject of gun control came up. Again, the "moderate gun-grabber" spoke and said that "hunting rifles were okay, but people shouldn't be allowed to own assault rifles". I casually mentioned to her that the rifle she had been handling a few weeks prior was considered an "assault rifle". Her response, "well, I didn't know"
"what do I know about guns?" "you're supposed to be the gun expert". :eyes:

It's pretty pathetic. The Big Lie strategy works well on complacent people.

How can a semi-automatic rifle be an assualt weapon? Technically, it isn't. Assualt Weapons Ban is a contrived term, just like Gun Show Loophole.

It's defined in the United States Code.

I do not recognize "assault weapon" as any kind of functional description of a class of firearms.

I was getting ready to argue with you when I realized I meant assault rifle and didn't say it.

Dumb post by me.

Pretty funny , considering how many flat-out lies the RKBA crowd push here on the subject...

should be renewed because people shouldn't be able to own bazookas and machine guns.

Nice playmates the gun grabbers have.

Tell us, feeb....what does it tell you when even a right wing piece of shit supports the bill pretty much every Democrat (except that asswipe Zell Miller) does?

Ever read Maimonides?

Even Chimpy McDipstick had to pay the assault weapons ban lip service to voters...although he hasn't done dick to get it passed. But then who is surprised Republicans are full of shit.

Granted, a lot of people are ignorant of the law in general, not just gun laws, but most of them don't go spouting off their ignorance on national TV.

that he's trying to spin himself as "bipartisan." which is a laugh and a half.

By the way, when was the last time he mentioned the assault weapons ban (or anything else about gun control) on his program?

Answer: He makes an announcement that he supports it once in a blue moon, usually when he's someplace like the Book Fair where Al Franken kicked his ass, trying to fool people into thinking he's not a right wing piece of shit. Right wing asswipes dredge up this claim also with stunning regularity, usually when they're trrying to pretend liberals are "afraid" of the pompous blowhard.

But he rarely gives anyone from the NRA anything approaching a hard time on his program.

as ignorant on December 9, 2003 when he went on about machine guns and bazookas while interviewing Larry Pratt.

There's a pair to draw to.....

in the dungeon arguing Bill O'Reilly's points for him. That would be the gun grabbers. Nice playmates those gun grabbers have.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Want to show us anything Krauthammer has written about gun control? Or George Will?

Here' s that shitheel Cal Thomas on gun controrl....guess what? He's against it...but then who is really surprised? Or who is surprised that most Cal's lies have been trotted out at one time or another almost verbatim by the RKBA crowd?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ef6cb85caf.htm

Funny you bring up 1831 Virginia..the shitheels around now trying to go back to those days are racist groups like Aryan Nations or the KKK?

Railing about gun control makes up a large part of their message. Here’s the Texas KKK:

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Want to show us a link to Krauthammer's comment? Want to show us a link to anything George Will says?

"Who cares what the KKK has to say about anything? "
Evidently the RKBA crowd here does..because they parrot their rhetoric. You sure wanted to pretend gun control was racist based on something from the early 1800s....but in fact every racist piece of shit that can be found TODAY spouts the same gun rights horseshit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nugent is your huckleberry....he's a racist piece of shit who's gun rights all the way.. He's even on the board of directors of the NRA.

Swell playmate you got there. I'll stick with Schumer and Feinstein...

"Here's the Minnesota branch of the Communist Party USA:

"The position of the CPUSA should be directed toward the corporate abuse and circumvention of laws that are already in place, the closing of loopholes in the laws concerning the sale of guns at gun shows, and requirements for safety features such as locks that prevent accidental deaths." "

How can you have a people's revolution without guns? Other than the corporate abuse part, whatever that means, their position is no different than pretty much every politician that runs for office, Republican or Democrat: Closing the gun show loophole and requirements for safety features. It's sad really.

In fairness to the Minnesota branch, I suppose they wouldn't want to be perceived as too radical. I shall pass this on to my anarchist friends. They'll get a kick out of it.

It is much more difficult to lynch a man who can shoot back.

But then it's so hard to frighten ignorant pinheads otherwise....

You cannot take those sons of bitches for their word. Neo-nazi skinheads and knights of the kluckers want to strip racial minorities and others of their rights, including that of self-defense. They do not want blacks and gays to own guns, they only want white people to own guns. You know why. The klucker website claiming that they support racial minorities right to own weapons is pure propaganda. I sincerely ask that you do NOT believe them. I realize it's fun to flame people on this board as racists and nazis, but it does not serve to spread this pernicious lie. Do not be the klucker's dupe. Reject their claim that they support any civil right (even one you may not personally support) for racial minorities.

The whoile movement is rotten from stem to stern....

We're talking about the racist identity movement. I would say "what does the klan say that isn't a lie" instead. So, do you maintain that the klucker fuckers support civil rights, among them that of self defense, for racial minorities? Frankly, I'm shocked that you steadfastly maintain that racist near-terrorists support weapon ownership for racial minorities. Please, for the love of all that is holy do not repeat the kluckers lies. They unequivically do not. They do not want blacks, jews, gays to be able to defend themselves from lynchings. This is not about the second amendment at all, because when you claim the kluckers support gun ownership for racial minorities you are spreading their propaganda -- something no progressive or liberal should ever do. If you truly believe that the kluckers or skins support gun ownership for blacks and jews then you do not understand what these types of people are all about.

and the loudest bunch peddling it in public are the scum of the earth...

"Please, for the love of all that is holy do not repeat the kluckers lies."
Jeeze, I'm not the one spouting that crap--it's the RKBA crowd that parrots their dishonest rhetoric.

"Gun rights" is a flat-out lie nd the loudest bunch peddling it in public are the scum of the earth...

Whether or not you believe the second amendment describes an individual or collective right does not matter. That is not what I am talking about. What I'm telling you is that neo-nazi skinheads and ku kluckers do not believe in gun ownership for racial minorities. By repeatedly posting that the kluckers support gun rights for all people including racial minorities, you are helping to spread their propaganda! Don't do this! Know your enemy! Then klucker fuckers do not believe in gun rights for every citizen. An allegedly  intelligent and cynical person such as yourself should be able to recognize the fact that the kluckers are lying. However, you seem more interesting in likening people on this board as racists and nazis. As entertaining as flaming people as racists may be, the implication is that white racists believe in black gun ownership and nazis believe in gun ownership for jews -- but this is a great falsehood! Racists and nazis do not believe in minority gun ownership. Just the opposite, they want minorities unable to defend themselves against oppression. The fact that you have quoted the kluckers on many occasions as believing in gun rights for blacks tells me that you are ignorant of the larger goals of the klan. The purpose of my replies is to set you straight on the kluckers, not to debate the second amendment. Your personal opinion on the subject is not the topic of my posts to you. My purpose is to counter KKK propaganda that you are unintentionally spreading, the most pernicious of which is the idea that they believe in rights for minorities. They absolutely do not. When you paint supporters of the individual interpretation as racists and nazis, you are not only insulting us but you are unintentionally stumping for the klan. People like me who support the individual interpretation of the second amendment do not appreciate being tarred as nazis and racists, but more concerning is the propagating the idea that the klan believes in rights (gun rights among them) for racial minorities!

and the scum peddling it on the public stage are folks like Trent Lott, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt and the like...

"By repeatedly posting that the kluckers support gun rights for all people including racial minorities, you are helping to spread their propaganda! Don't do this! Know your enemy!"
Jeeze, I know the enemy...and I'm not pointing out anything except what a dishonest pantload the "gun rights" movement really is.

The fact that you have quoted the kluckers on many occasions as believing in gun rights for blacks tells me that you are ignorant of the larger goals of the klan.
Who DO you think you're kidding?

"When you paint supporters of the individual interpretation as racists and nazis, you are not only insulting us but you are unintentionally stumping for the klan."
And when the RKBA crowd parrots this dishonest gun rights crap, what are they doing?
When the RKBA crowd posts rubbish from Newsmax and other right wing cesspools as if it were legitimate, what are they doing?
When the RKBA crowd attacks pretty much every Democrat who can be found, what are they doing?
When the RKBA crowd tries desperately to pretend that scum like John Lott and Larry Pratt aren't openly racist, what are they doing?

I am not talking about the second amendment, nor am I talking about your interpretation of the second amendment, whether you support the collectivist individual viewpoint. What I am talking about is your citation from that ku klucker website. You maintain that the citation represents the positions of the klucker fucks, but I am telling you that they are lying about their true opinions. The thing I like the least about you is your reluctance to stick to the topic and hesitation against plain answers. I've grown accustomed to your evasions but I still believe you can give a straight answer. I am not debating your talking points on the efficacy and utility of the collectivist interpretation of the second amendment. I am not speaking on my individual interpretation of the second amendment. I am not talking about Ashcroft or Gingrich or Nuget. I am not even talking about newsmax or Sun Myung Moon. I am only talking about your repeated citation from a klucker fuck website, that claims that they support civil rights for minorities, private ownership of weapons among them. I am telling you with total confidance that the klan is deceiving you, and I am telling you not propagate klucker proaganda. Your continued refusal to correct yourself on this matter tells me that you have a profound ignorance of true cesspools of humanity such as the white power or neonazi movements.

and supported by some of the scummiest figures in public life?

Guns have no rights. People have rights. Your opinion that those who support allowing Americans to exercise their rights are "some of the scummiest figures in public life" is irrelevant. Even the scummiest figures in public life have rights.

I'll ask the question again: Why are you so afraid of guns, or more specifically, why are you so afraid of Americans exercising their right to protect themselves from criminals and tyrants?

are peddling this pile of horseshit.

I'll ask the question again...why is "gun rights" such horseshit, and why do only the scum of the earth trumpet it on the public stage.

"Even the scummiest figures in public life have rights"
Yeah, but so few decent people want to play kissy-face with them...or pretend that those scummy figures are honest and decent people like John Kerry and Chuck Schumer are evil....

That's the only "horseshit" you keep trying to peddle here, Comrade Benchley.

That's not what "pro-gun" pieces of shit say....

"  GUN RIGHTS NEWS, VIEWS AND ACTION!   "

http://www.saveourguns.com/gunalerts.htm

(Incidentally, is there a LESS secure group of Americans than the bunch toting popguns around? They always seem to have their panties in a bunch about threats high and low)

"*-*-* Michael Medved Great Program today. A clinic on supporting Gun Rights. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/t366465773bfd.htm

"Comrade Benchley"
How telling...

Or "the scum of the earth". Despite what the media insists on pushing on us the fact is that guns do not have rights. People have rights. Does the concept of individual rights register with you, Comrade, or is everything for the benefit of the State?

Depersonalize/dehumanize those with whom one disagrees and violating their rights becomes more tolerable.

It makes perfect sense if you are a member of the Klan, or perhaps a neo-Nazi group.

Besides not wanting taggants in propellants.

Oh yeah, they push this pro-gun propaganda.

of the sort of politician and pundit peddling this crap on the national stage.

Gotta watch that broad brush:

"Numerous State and national organizations have recognized Congressman Rahall for his work. For his work on environmental issues, he is the recipient of the 1997 Citizen’s Coal Council award, the 1996 "Keeper of the Flame Award" presented in 1996 by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and the 1990 "Friend of the Earth Award" for his work on protecting the coalfield environment, the Sierra Club’s 1988 "Seneca Award" for Outstanding Environmental Stewardship and American River's 1988 "River Conservation Award.”

In the area of transportation, Rahall has received the American Road & Transportation Builders Association’s 1997 Public Service Award and the 1996 Highway Safety Leader Award. Diverse organizations such as the National Association of Home Care, the West Virginia Home Health Council, the West Virginia Credit Union and the American Federation of Government Employees of West Virginia have also recognized Rahall’s public service.

A 33rd degree Mason, Rahall is a life member of the National Rifle Association, ..."

He also voted against the AWB in 94 and in favor of repeal of the AWB in 96. He is on record as opposing the extension of the AWB.

"People have rights."
And gun nuts seem intent on trampling them so that they can play with their lethal toys.

squawking that the NRA isn't crazy and extremist enough to suit you....

But I guess that's one way of looking at it.

Voted for the AWB repeal and against the original AWB.
Mollahan voted against NAFTA and GATT also.

Why does the Fraternal Order of Police oppose any expansion of the ban?

What do they know that the VPC doesn't?

"The May 2003 VPC report, "Officer Down"—Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement, revealed that one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty from January 1998 through December 2001 was slain with an assault weapon, many of which were "post-ban" or other models that will remain untouched by the Senate action taken today".

In their estimation, other than their consistent call for a ban on all handguns.

Guess what doesn't appear on the page "Legislation we oppose"?

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legislation/oppose.html

Of course, guess what is a lodge and not a union?

The various AWB renewal or expansion bills are also conspicuously NOT on the "Legislation we support" page.

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legislation/support.html

Of course, guess what is a lodge and not a union?

Now ask me if I give two craps about that.

Statement of Senator John Warner on S 2109 (Feinstein reauthorization bill on AWB) Congressional Record, page S1525

" In a letter dated February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police all across Virginia.


Buu-buu-but! The VPC says post-ban weapons are just as dangerous to law enforcement officers. Does, the lack (or presence), of cosmetic features
make a difference or not?

Why doesn't the VPC and the anti-gun legislators who insist that a stronger ban is needed tell us even the rank-and-file cops don't support that measure?


As far as the FOP is concerned...

Why did they support the current ban and why did they wait until Feb 18 to issue that statement?


Well gee, they really wanted the national CCW bill passed in a bad way. Think maybe that had something to do with it?


Their token support of the current ban was political back scratching and in the end, they got shafted by the anti-gun legislators.

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/press/pr040302.html

"S. 1805 Rejected by the Senate
Steve Young Amendment Passes, but the Underlying Bill Is Victim of Anti-Gun Efforts

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, announced the defeat of S. 1805, the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," on the Senate floor today. The Senate voted down the bill just hours after approving Senate Amendment 2623, the "Steve Young Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act," which passed on an overwhelming 91-8 vote.

"Just as the F.O.P. had predicted, this legislation became a 'gun control bill,'" Canterbury said, referring to amendments which reauthorized the assault weapons ban and imposed new regulations on the sale of firearms at gun shows. "Ultimately, the addition of these gun control amendments killed the underlying legislation."


Notice, there's no mention of the NRA or RKBA activists; their emphasis is on "Underlying Bill Is Victim of Anti-Gun Efforts...

"Just as the F.O.P. had predicted, this legislation became a 'gun control bill,'"


Guess what doesn't appear on the page "Legislation we oppose"?

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legislation/oppose.html

Gee, no mention of any opposition to any AWB, nor any opposition to S 659/S 1805. No mention of any opposition to te supposed "gunshow loophole".

However, look at what they clearly do oppose.

# H.R. 124 (Holt, D-NJ), the "Handgun Licensing and Registration Act," would require the licensing and registration of all handguns with the Federal government;




Courtesy of Thomas.loc.gov


A BILL

To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM TO APPLY IN ANY STATE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 931. Licensing and registration of handguns

`(a)(1) The Attorney General shall establish a Federal system for the licensing and registration of all handguns owned, possessed, or controlled in the United States, which shall include a method for easily retrieving information sufficient to identify--

`(A) each resident of a State to which this subsection applies who owns, possesses, or controls a handgun; and

`(B) the handgun.

`(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to own, possess, or control a handgun in a State to which this subsection applies unless the person--

`(A) is licensed to do so by the system established pursuant to paragraph (1); and

`(B) has registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency.




Of course, guess what is a lodge and not a union?

And the significance of that is...what?

Everybody knows a Republican would never...lie, or anything...

By the way, there's nothing keeping the Republicans from bringing that amendment back to life as a stand-alone bill....think they will?

You gomers have just the nicest playmates.

The Congressional Record is a right-wing rag?

:tinfoilhat:

:D


Never mind that Warner was against the AWB 10 years ago and now he's for it.

Never mind that the statement he made was in support of renewing the current AWB.

Never mind that Warner has cosponsored other proposed AWB legislation.

Never mind that he acknowledges a co-conspirator in his alleged deception (from the same Congressional Record statement)...

"I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, legislation that models exactly what the President has indicated he would sign into law: a straight 10-year reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban".

"I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation, and it is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously and send this legislation to President Bush to sign into law".

Never mind that the FOP hasn't denied the text of the letter.

Just more shenannigans in J/PS.

the VPC now is in favor of assault weapons....

That John Warner was lying about the FOP, yet?

How about a link showing that taggants are commonly used in European smokeless powder?

No? Keep looking and let us know what you find out.

that some people are so desperate they're even trying to pretend the VPC has changed its position on assault weapons..

Maybe even outright lies.

it's more like they're conceding defeat (is that such a bad thing?). I'm just curious how they're going to re-spin the post/pre-ban fallacy now that the rank-and-file cops have pretty much told them what a pantload it is.

and that voters and the next President want it, seems like it's the gun lobby that's facing defeat.

You have to have at least 60 votes to assure cloture, and 67 to override a veto.

...hmmm?

Listen to the audio. It's pretty hilarious.

(I wonder tho - if that collection ever has a few too many beers, gets behind the wheel of a car, and starts driving around D.C. robbing 7-11's and such?)

I love the part where he’s pointing out the fixed/non-collapsible stock on the post-ban Bushmaster, he’s like, “See this won’t collapse like the other (pre-ban) one.”

Wow! The fact that a butt stock is adjustable from 13.5” to 10” makes it a deadly Assault Weapon?

It’s like he almost understands the absurdity of the AWB perfectly. He’s almost able to put it all together in his head – you can just about hear the machinations putting all the little pieces in a straight line:

“What the fuck? The last time 3.5” was so dangerous to the public at large was when GB Sr. snuck up on Bar that one night back in the ‘40’s!”

C’mon Tom! You can do it!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That was hilarious! Did you hear the big thunk after he said "it won't make a wit of difference"? That was the collective jaw of every pro 2a supporter in the world dropping at the same time.

...bang bang? Me thinks I smell an illegal magazine.

But I'll give Tom credit for being 'brave' enough to shoot a gun at least.

What people find appealing about firearms.

Maybe he's starting to convert over to our side?

He definitely sounded like he was having doubts in the interview.