Clearly, your head is up your ass or you don’t know how to use Google.

JS Online welcomes the NRA but details some differences of opinion:

What we do have a hard time buying is that military-style, semiautomatic weapons are essential to the right to hunt. Yet in backing a federal ban on such weapons, we find ourselves accused of trying to outlaw all guns. These rapid-fire weapons are a favorite of organized gangs and mass killers and a peril to law officers. So as we see it, the NRA’s successful lobbying to lift that ban aids the bad guys.

Sorry, sparky, but semi-automatic weapons banned by the assault weapons ban were not military-style. It was a ban on weapons that looked like military-style weapons. And, of course, it has nothing to do with hunting. And I’d like to see a stat on the statement that These rapid-fire weapons are a favorite of organized gangs and mass killers and a peril to law officers because the last I checked, these weapons were used in significantly less than 1% of crimes.

You may wish to take some time to learn about an issue instead of just repeating the anti-gun lobby’s talking points.

Ditto for NRA’s opposition to closing the gun-show loophole in the Brady Law, which requires licensed gun dealers to check with the FBI the background of buyers to ensure that they aren’t felons or otherwise ineligible to own firearms. The rule does not apply to unlicensed dealers, who proliferate at gun shows, which, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, thugs and gangsters do frequent. So do suspected suppliers of foreign terrorists, court documents suggest.

Say it with me: there is no gun show loophole. Sales at gun shows are subject to the same rules as sales elsewhere. Unlicensed dealers that exist are illegal. You are no doubt referring to the private transfer provisions, or as I like to call it, engaging in lawful commerce.

The NRA has campaigned – successfully, overall – to have each state enact a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons. Wisconsin has been a holdout, however.

I don’t see the problem and Wisconsin will have it, mark my words.

We actually agree with the NRA that the law might do some good, by allowing license-holders to defend themselves. But we also note that such laws have done some ill elsewhere, leading to unjustified shootings or to harm to license-holders trying to thwart crime. In our judgment, the threat of the bad is greater than the promise of the good.

Then let’s see a cite for that because nothing I’ve read about CCW (and I’ve read a lot) indicates that trend. In fact, it tends to have little impact on crime either way.

Posted in uncategorized on May 19th, 2006 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |