Another unsigned gun editorial
It really ranks up there with those articles that are too stupid to fisk but I’m linking to it because it’s in a Tennessee paper:
In a time when the nation is trying to erect barriers to terrorism in order to protect the public, the U.S. Congress is about to allow the decade-old assault weapons ban to lapse.
Terrorism card off the bat. Some objective reporting you got there.
The 1994 law bans the sale and manufacture of 19 military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, including the Uzi and the AK-47. As weapons bans go, this is an extremely weak one: The law specifically names 700 types of weapons that are not banned. Still, the ban has helped keep the most deadly weapons weapons of choice for many terrorists off American streets.
It doesn’t ban 19 weapons. It bans features weapons can have. And the Uzi and AK47 are in no way affected by the ban. Those weapons are regulated under the 1934 NFA act as machine guns; and the semi-auto versions have been regulated since 1989 under an executive order.
There’s more on the politics of the ban in the article.
July 12th, 2004 at 11:23 am
Still, the ban has helped keep the most deadly weapons weapons of choice for many terrorists
I thought ALL terrorists buy their legal “child killing, fully automatic, magic bullets that can shoot down the space shuttle” from legal gun stores?
July 12th, 2004 at 12:24 pm
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that semiautomatic Uzis and AK47s are “in no way affected by the ban,” just because they are also prohibited by executive order. Presidents can rescind executive orders any time they want.
July 12th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
Though I see your point and can agree with it, I rarely see any governmental official go out of their way to make less laws and bureaucratic nonsense. The likelihood of it being rescinded is about the same as me shitting a snowball.
July 12th, 2004 at 3:50 pm
Maybe I’m completely confused on this law, so correct me if I’m wrong. I could have SWORN that the only thing the “ban” bans is manufacture and transfer of NEW firearms meeting such-and-such criteria, and then only to us untrustworthy civilian low-lifes.
The reason I ask is that every newspaper article states that it “bans sales,” and I was under the impression that that wasn’t exactly true.
July 12th, 2004 at 4:34 pm
You’re correct about the current ban. However, the ban mentioned in this post is a new version.
July 12th, 2004 at 4:42 pm
Right. So every time I see a newspaper article or an editorial (or an editorial masquerading as an article) that says “The 1994 law bans the sale of XXXX,” is the author ignorant or lying?
July 12th, 2004 at 5:12 pm
They are ignorant and lying depending. The VPC, which knows it doesn’t, is lying. A reporter who gets the info from somewhere else may not be. THe ban does name rifles specifically but has been interpreted to not ban them unless they have the features also listed.