NRA, stopped

NRA, stopped
: The good news is, the NRA was defeated today. Says StopTheNRA.com: “It’s the most historic day for gun safety policy in the ten years since Congress passed the landmark Brady Bill.” The bad news is that the NRA — telling its puppet lawmakers what to do — defeated its own bill meant to protect gun makers because it included amendments to extend the assault weapons ban and the gun-show loophole and now those two important protections are also gone. So come September, you can return to your neighborhood assault weapons store. The real loser is yet to be namad. That will be the needless victim of that murder weapon yet to be bought and fired.

: Kerry and Edwards voted for the assault ban. It’s getting easier and easier to vote for Kerry.

: Glenn Reynolds links to a different perspective, natch.

  • radices

    ‘Kerry and Edwards voted for the assault ban. It’s getting easier and easier to vote for Kerry.’
    You must be absolootly daft.

  • Dinosaur

    I can’t wait to get my hands on an assault weapon. Hey, you lookin at me? Seriously, it was 90-8, so Kerry had a lot of company, and the NRA wussed out, and now is whining. I hate whining. Bigger story is Bush as he claimed to favor assault ban, but sat on his hands, as usual. Oh, that’s right, he’s a war President, busy overturning Caribbean democracies. But I digress.

  • ralph

    buzzmachine-way too much bong action here by the El Cubos

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    Oh my God, the NRA “lost” and the “assault weapon” ban will go away. What’s the cost? The abusive lawsuits that are being tossed out practically daily will have to comtinue to be tossed out retail (enriching a few more lawyers) instead of being tossed out wholesale.
    Sounds like you guys are whistling in the dark.
    In the mean time, there’s a war on, and you’re worried about someone in this country having scary-looking guns.

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    Exactly how easy is it to get a firearm in the US these days?
    If it’s relatively easy, shouldn’t that be fixed since it would make it easy for terrorists to get weapons and kill Americans?

  • Danny

    You’re clueless, Jeff. The ‘assault weapons’ ban was a Clinton feel-good law with zero effect on reducing gun crime, but it did make a bunch of gullible fools think he was really doing something important. Any law-abiding citizen can go out and buy a so-called “assault weapon” tomorrow. It just won’t be new. You think a criminal cares if his gun is brand new, or even whether he’s abiding by the law? Get a clue.

  • htom

    You do understand that the killings of humans with the currently banned “assault weapons” are infrequent, compared to other kinds of firearms? When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by being shot with a rifle — and all of the banned “assault weapons” are rifles — in other than in a hunting accident? It does happen, sad to say, but not often.
    http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

  • http://nothing-to-see-here.blogspot.com BD

    Most people don’t know what the assault weapons ban really does. They don’t know how the law defines an “assault weapon.” Here’s a quick exercise:
    Rifle with pistol grip, OK.
    Rifle with flash suppressor, OK.
    Rifle with both, evil assault weapon which must be banned.
    There are non-banned rifles which are far more accurate or more powerful than an M-16 or AK-47, but those assault weapons just LOOK menacing. Ban them. Whatever.

  • Mumblix Grumph

    Yay! An organization devoted to upholding constitutional rights gets slapped in the face! Let’s all do the Happy Dance!
    Hey, now that Edwards has all that free time, he can make another few million suing gun manufacturers out of business!
    All that and if we vote for Kerry we can have another black president like Clinton!
    Blue skies, people…farking blue skies!

  • http://www.thefatguy.com Scott Chaffin

    A week ago it was poor Howie and the Clear Channel assault on the 1st Amendment.
    Today, it’s agitating for continued govt. infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
    How do you feel about Amendments 3-10? Anything else in there you’d get rid of so you can feel better? Maybe that pesky 4th, so the coppers can come and get the scary guns off the streets?
    I know a good one for you — how about that small part of the 1st about people assembling, like the raging gunvolk over at the NRA?
    Here — check it over, and let us know just what doesn’t fit in this Modern World.

  • Eric

    The Street Gangs don’t buy their weapons from licensed dealers, they get them illegally.
    Look at Britain there are Gun laws like mad there but more people are killed in that country with illegal firearms everyday, doesn’t seem to stop Gang violence there at all.
    If a Criminal wants a weapon, he’ll get one that is untraceable, the better to commit his crimes.

  • http://www.linnwood.org S.A. Miller

    good news
    Yeah, if you are a trial lawyer…. Say, now that you mention it, John Edwards is out of work….

  • Dexter Westbrook

    This is a good way of discovering who knows what they’re talking about and who doesn’t. Anyone who describes what Congress approved in 1994 as an “assault weapons ban” does not know what they are talking about, as a matter of objective fact.
    The provision wasn’t an “assault weapons ban.” It was a ban against a very small number of what I’ll call scary-looking guns. Some were identified by name (the TEC-9, Kalashnikov). Most were defined by features. A rifle with a detachable clip could not have two or more of these features: 1) Pistol grip; 2)Folding or telescopic stock; 3)Bayonet mount; 4)Flash suppressor; or 5)Grenade launcher.
    A rifle without any of those features was fine, even if its performance was the same. If it could fire the same number and caliber of bullets as rapidly as an “assault weapon,” but didn’t have any of the forbidden features, it was OK.
    It’s similar to banning Corvettes and Vipers and calling the action a ban on fast sports cars, while allowing people to buy Porsches and Lamborghinis because they don’t have those ugly side exhaust pipes that make them look like gauche muscle cars.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    Now, now, Scott — Jeff was violently against the Clear Channel thing, not for it. Let’s keep our complaints straight.

  • John

    Dexter is absolutely right. The assault weapon ban bans nothing substantive. Most of the firearms supposedly banned were given cosmetic changes, i.e. the bayonet lugs were removed, and sold under another name (the Colt AR-15 became the Colt HBAR, for example). You can go out right now and buy a semiautomatic rifle almost identical the the weapons that were ‘banned’. In fact, rifles are marketed as ‘pre-ban’ or ‘post- ban.’ If you want an AR-15, you can buy one now. It just won’t look like exactly like an M-16 because it will be missing a flash hider and bayonet lug. The ban is just annoying to gun enthusiasts, and convinces them that the Democratic Party is hostile to them. Thus, it needlessly antagonizes a group of people without any significant gain.
    The assault weapon ban is a symbol. It won’t change anything significant either way. Getting rid of it will remove a source of annoyance to gun buyers. Keeping it will allow gun control enthusiasts to think they are accomplishing something, when really they are not. It does show how people feel about gun rights.

  • hen

    funnier then Jeff’s contortions on the Bill of Rights is that John F’ing Kerry who voted not for a single bill this year, and scoffs at the notion that he is the most liberal moron in the Senate, made SURE not to miss this vote.
    hey Robert – can you please direct me to a link which shows that terrorists are arming themselves with American bought guns? funny me but whenever i watch the news they seem to be holding up AK’s, fully auto, bought on the cheap on the other side of the pond, but what do i know? i believe what the second says.

  • Matt Wittke

    Jeff,
    “assault weapons” are NOT machine guns, and the 94 ban on cosmetic features has nothing to do with machine guns/automatic weapons. “Assault weapon” is a term that anti-gun people use in order to confuse non-gun people…the banned guns may look like military guns, but that’s all, cosmetic similarity, nothing more. Real machine guns have been and are regulated by a 1934 federal law. You can still buy non-banned, military-look-alike guns today that were never affected by the AWB. Why are you so sure that the 94 AWB is saving lives? What crime stats are you using? I’d like to know how you came to your conclusions.

  • shark

    So let me get this straight-
    The govt had better not fiddle with Stern, but it’s ok for them to pass all sorts of gun control? (even though gun control does NOTHING to stop gun crimes)
    I thought ALL the ammendments to the bill of rights carried equal weight, but I guess not. Hypocrite

  • trump

    So come September, you can return to your neighborhood assault weapons store. The real loser is yet to be named. That will be the needless victim of that murder weapon yet to be bought and fired
    Because as we all know, criminals, gangsters and assorted dirtbags like to buy their guns nice and legal…

  • http://nothing-to-see-here.blogspot.com BD

    Here’s an illustration of the assault weapons ban:
    This is banned from manufacture or import.
    This is not, and is perfectly legal.

  • James Stephenson

    Gun Control. Gun Control will not stop Gun Crime in this country. It hasn’t in Britain. And they have such crazy laws as to arrest a man defending his home with a gun. What the heck kind of crazy place is that. Yet, they still have gun violence.
    And the basement Gun maker is a thriving black market business in Britain.
    We can not keep drugs out of this country, we would not be able to keep guns out of this country.
    The 2nd Amendment, I realize Jeff it may not be as important to you as the 1st Amendment, is still an Amendment. Personally I am against any attempt to limit either Amendment, through crazy PC crap, or Gun Control Laws.
    Make up your mind Jeff, are you for or against the Bill of Rights?

  • Sandy P.

    Dear Mr. McClelland:
    –If it’s relatively easy, shouldn’t that be fixed since it would make it easy for terrorists to get weapons and kill Americans?–
    You mean like the bazooka that some people used to blow off the jailhouse door to help some friend w/an Italian surname escape in France last March? Article 3/14/03. Or or happened on 3/14 and was published a couple of days after.
    I think I found it on Merde or Dissident.

  • Sandy P.

    2nd Amendment protects the 1st. Can’t have free speeck w/out something protecting your back.

  • Sandy P.

    –hey Robert – can you please direct me to a link which shows that terrorists are arming themselves with American bought guns? —
    At least we have a chance if we can buy these.
    I’m more worried about splodydopes w/semtex strapped to their bodies.

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >hey Robert – can you please direct me to a link which shows that terrorists are arming themselves with American bought guns?
    If, on September 10th, 2001, I had said that there should be tighter security checks on passengers boarding airplanes because terrorists might hijack one and fly it into a building, would you have said the same thing?
    I’m not all that familiar with US gun control legislation, but like I said, if a terrorist can simply walk into a gun store and buy a firearm without any kind of background check, it would seem to me that you have a problem with lax security in your country. And to wait until a terrorist or group of terrorists buys a bunch of firearms and then goes Columbine on your ass before fixing the problem is rather shortsighted.

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >You mean like the bazooka that some people used to blow off the jailhouse door to help some friend w/an Italian surname escape in France last March?
    But they are not hypocrites about it. They don’t confiscate the nailclippers from people boarding airplanes (because terrorists are everywhere!
    Run, flee! Aieeee, the sky is falling!) while just implicitly trusting that the swarthy Arab who is walking into the gun store is not a terrorist and therefore doesn’t need to have a background check done on him before being handed an instrument of killing.

  • http://nothing-to-see-here.blogspot.com BD

    I’m not all that familiar with US gun control legislation…
    Which is about to be proven.
    but like I said, if a terrorist can simply walk into a gun store and buy a firearm without any kind of background check…
    Which they can’t. Nobody can.
    it would seem to me that you have a problem with lax security in your country.
    Well, since they can’t, we don’t.
    And to wait until a terrorist or group of terrorists buys a bunch of firearms and then goes Columbine on your ass before fixing the problem is rather shortsighted.
    The only way they’ll get them is illegally. The only non-citizens who may purchase firearms are immigrant aliens. Anyone in the country on a non-immigrant visa may not purchase them.

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >The only way they’ll get them is illegally. The only non-citizens who may purchase firearms are immigrant aliens. Anyone in the country on a non-immigrant visa may not purchase them.
    So then all that stands in the way of a Columbine-like attack is whether or not a terrorist could obtain a fake ID.

  • http://nothing-to-see-here.blogspot.com BD

    In theory. Then again, presenting false identification is a felony in many states. However it happens, it will be done outside of the law.
    And in reality, only Columbine was Columbine-like. (Hence your use of the phrase, “Columbine-like.” If it were not a singular event, your choice of words would be more generalized.) If it was easy for terrorists to replicate, it would have happened by now.
    I’ll present a parallel. Illegal drugs are, obviously, not legally obtainable. Yet 20 million Americans were users, at the time of the most recent government study, in September. Fat lot of good it’s done to push it to the criminal world, eh?
    Besides, firearms are a poor way to commit terrorism. (How many mass shootings do you see in Israel versus suicide bombings? Or anywhere else? Bombs are far and away the favorite weapon, despite the huge abundance of firearms in many parts of the world. Iraq included.) Guns are an especially poor terrorist weapon here. The odds are good that someone is going to return fire and make your terorrist act short-lived.
    And how did this work itself into a discussion about a ban on rifles that look a certain way?