THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.
When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.
I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.
But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.
Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.
Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.
What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.
Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.
The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.
.THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994
Did any of these organziations provide concrete evidence that their officers, in terms of their safety while on duty, drew a direct benefit from the 'awb'?When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation...
This is, of course, fiction....called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.
This is designed to protray JC as a pro-gun American, living in the best traditions of same. This is designed to add credibility to the next para...I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.
Really, do I need to comment here?But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives.
Obviously, if the argument, above, is why 'assault weapons' "must" be banned, then there's no sound reason ti ban them.That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
This has been addressed.An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons
So what?but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
See above.A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons.
Its no suprise that he is dismayed by the people that oppose his desire to infringe on the rights of law abiding Americans.Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban
I agree - if you REALLY believe that 'assault weapons' MUST be banned, then you should go after the ban regardless of what it will do to you politically....and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.
Wait...Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us....
How does bannng 'assault weapons' --not-- illustrate a threat to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.
This is, of course, completely unsupprtable.Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty
.In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows
What guns are "designed to kill people"?What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people?
What % of guns does that 30k represent?In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.
"Advanced weaponry"...like the 60-yr old AK47 and the 45-yr old AR-15?Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.
This is the same lame argument WR keeps making, one that has been thoroughly trounced -- it is based on the false dichotomy and false premise that the only "responible" actions in this regard are those that he/they think are responsible.The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons...
Two things:We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.
Like...?No, because... Jimmy Carter said it.
I am for banning certain assault weapons....
Like...?
Why those and not the others?
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself.
Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.
I'm not trying to be difficult here - understand that I am genuinely curious.Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.
Waiting...:2wave:I wonder if the people that think this makes a "strong case for the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban" will address these issues with Carter's piece...
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have in their possession the means of overthrowing a tyrannical government. That means....so-called "assualt" weapons.
so by that logic you are for banning:
cigarettes
suv's
motorcycles
excessivly large tv's
buffets
fatty foods
i can go on ad nauseum if you would like.
If they are more efficient at "murder" then by the same logic, would they not be also more efficient at preventing murder?
I'm not trying to be difficult here - understand that I am genuinely curious.
Which specific 'assault weapons' do you believe should be banned?
Can you name one or more?
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have in their possession the means of overthrowing a tyrannical government. That means....so-called "assualt" weapons.
It was actually more to keep the government from having large standing armies. The idea was that if there were well armed and organized local militias, the federal government could call upon them to defend the nation if needed. Since the means of national defense would then primarily lie with the people, the government could never become tyrannical.
So then it's OK for individual citizens to own nuclear weapons? After all, the Second Amendment only said "arms", not "guns".
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself.
and i dont' see how those reasons will be impeded by getting rid of assult weapons.
Most of Carter's reasons seemed pretty poor, but I agree with him in that assult weapons can kill many people at once.
Even though I roughly consider myself pro-gun, my reason are for hunting, self defence, overthrowing this gov, protection against invasions, and getting rid of ascess to all types of guns doesn't reduce crime.
and i dont' see how those reasons will be impeded by getting rid of assult weapons.
Gee, I said "assualt" weapons, didn't I?
You can't argue against what's posted so you have to go nuclear non-sequitur on us, or what?
Yes I do. Who are you to say I don't?
It's not non-sequitor. The fact that we can all agree on not letting ordinary citizens own nuclear weapons- we can all agree on that, right?- proves beyond doubt that there is a certain level of power beyond which marketable weapons should not legally go. The only question remaining is where that level is.
Someone who doesn't want his whole family blown away before I can even pick up a weapon of my own?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?