PDA

View Full Version : AWB: Carolyn McCarthy 4th Dist New York


Wesley w/Glock
02-26-2004, 03:30 PM
I obtained a newsletter from Congresswoman McCarthy dated Feb 25 in which she rants about the evils of "assault weapons" (whatever that is).

I maintain that AWB is not dead. Antis are perfectly willing to glide along the slippery slope but are not accustomed to back-pedeling.

Here is some of the text:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban
As this year progresses, we grow ever closer to the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress banned for ten years the possession, transfer, or further domestic manufacturing of semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devices (detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds) that were not legally owned or available prior to September 13, 1994. Even before the Assault Weapons Ban took effect, the Reagan and Bush Administrations halted the importation of some of these firearms under the 1968 Gun Control Act. The Clinton Administration halted the importation of additional firearms, which were not technically semiautomatic assault weapons, but had been modified to circumvent the rules of the Assault weapons Ban. This important piece of legislation is set to expire on September 13, 2004 unless Congress acts to reauthorize the ban this year.

Many firearm manufacturers have tried to circumvent the laws by modifying the design of firearms classified as semiautomatic assault weapons so they no longer meet the definition of a banned assault weapon but are still able to produce a very powerful weapon. As a result, it is likely some proposals to extend or make permanent the ban, that must be considered this year, may also include provisions to expand the list of those weapons banned to include those weapons which have been modified or new models manufactured after 1994. Congress must adopt new definitions of assault weapons just as gun manufacturers have adopted ways to bypass current law.


Assault weapons were 20 times more likely to be used in a crime than a conventional firearm

Americans will pay a terrible price if Congress and President Bush fail to renew and strengthen the ban on assault weapons. The deadly toll caused by semiautomatic weapons reached its peak in the early 1990’s before the federal ban was enacted. It was during this period when America heard almost daily of another gang shoot-out or drive-by shooting. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), assault weapons were 20 times more likely to be used in a crime than a conventional firearm.


Assault weapons use in crimes declined by 20% following enactment of the federal ban

Criminals choose assault weapons because of their rapid fire and easy concealment, a combination which has proven deadly to police time and time again. Before the federal Assault Weapons Ban, police where simply outgunned by criminals with assault weapons that could spray dozens of bullets in seconds. In response to the high number of police deaths by assault weapons, every major law enforcement agency in the country supported the federal ban. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that assault weapons use in crimes declined by 20% following enactment of the federal ban. Now with the Assault Weapons Ban about to expire, our police and communities will again be at risk unless Congress acts soon.

I have heard the argument many times that assault weapons should not be banned because they are used for sport. This could not be further from the truth. Assault weapons are designed for combat, not sport. Unlike sporting firearms, assault weapons are meant to be spray-fired from the hip and allow the shooter to maintain perfect control even while rapidly firing dozens of rounds. According to a BATF study conducted under the current Administration, sportsmen DO NOT use assault weapons. In fact, the BATF concluded assault weapons are never suitable for sport and should be restricted.

Considering the high cost our nation pays, both socially and economically because of gun violence, and the success of the 1994 ban, the only logical step is for Congress to reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban permanently. Firearms are the second leading cause of death for people under 19 in the US today. By allowing these military style assault weapons back on the streets, we are putting our nation’s youth at enormous risk, a fact I cannot live with. Gun violence costs our nation over $100 billion annually in medical expenses and lost productivity. Unfortunately, many victims are uninsured, forcing the American public to pay the high medical bills. Keeping assault weapons off the streets means lives and dollars will be saved across the country.


The only logical step is for Congress to reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban permanently

With the Federal Assault Weapons Ban set to expire on September 13, 2004, the safety and security of our nation’s streets is in jeopardy. The President has stated publicly that he would support a measure to make the Assault Weapons Ban permanent. Mr. President, now is the time to act! I have introduced legislation (HR 2038) to not only make permanent the current ban on assault weapons, but also expand the list of banned weapons to keep up with gun manufacturers technology.

We are at a serious point in our nation’s history. The lives of our civilians and police will be at a serious risk if Congress does not act now. We must work together to keep these dangerous weapons off of our streets and out of our schools.

Sincerely,
Carolyn McCarthy


I especially liked the part where crooks shoot "assault weapons" at the hip as if that would some sort of advantage. The article clearly suggests full-auto action.

I hunted around on the web for a hyperlink for this stuff but it appears that this hate speech is only spewed in this newsletter. If anyone wants a copy PM me and I will forward it.

Brian
02-26-2004, 10:10 PM
I wrote the following letter to a local paper in response to an article by a national columnist and to a caller who didn't know anything about guns let alone assault weapons. Having the chance to re-read it tonight I made some changes but it remanins essentialy the same as it was when published last year. Since the AWB has come up again I thought I would post it here.

As a National Rifle Association Life Member I would like to respond to Ron Cohen’s column about the NRA and to a call in from “Sis” from Fort Gratiot.

The case Ron mentioned in his article was the result of a person trying to unload a handgun that he was not familiar with. Since there was nothing mechanically wrong with the gun why should the gun manufacturer be held accountable for someone’s negligence? To Ron’s question the NRA has never satisfactorily answered. (who hunts Deer with an AK-47?) It’s so ridiculous it doesn’t merit a response. Except that what Mr. Cohen, like so many left wing liberal extremists don’t understand or care about is that the Second Amendment isn’t about Deer hunting, Duck hunting or target practice. It’s about protecting our Homes, Businesses, Neighborhoods and our Lives.

How different Sept 11th 2001 would have been if at least one person on each of the hijacked plane’s had been armed. But because of the left wing extremist anti self-defense mindset that’s responsible for America’s draconian anti-gun laws thousands of Americans and people of several other nations were murdered. And on flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania, in order to save countless lives a group of brave Patriots formed a militia and were forced to exercise their Second Amendment Right emptied handed and in doing so, died. How proud Sara Brady and her kind must be that on that day not a single shot was fired.

The assault weapons ban should expire as intended because it should have never been passed in the first place. It’s feel good legislation that has no substance because these firearms function no different from thousands of “legal” semi-automatic “sporting” guns on the market now.

I also think the term assault weapon should be changed in as much as these firearms are used for defensive purposes and not to assault anyone we should call them anti-assault weapons. But that doesn’t have the same negative connotation does it? Of course it doesn’t. They’re supposed to be bad guns and people aren‘t supposed to like them. They look menacing because they have a pistol grip, black paint and a black plastic stock, and because of the ten, twenty or thirty round magazine sticking out from the bottom. But if you’re about to be attacked and need an assault weapon to defend yourself, they look like your best friend.

When faced with aggressor’s who don’t care whether you live or die you need an assault weapon to defend yourself. During the Rodney King riots Store Owners stood in front of their shops and or on the roof tops with their semi-automatic rifles because they understood that a hunting gun would be no match for an angry mob. Sure, they could’ve dialed 911 and I’m sure many of them did. But if you remember the film footage, where were all the police? They were busy elsewhere or just standing on the corner waiting for word to act, or standing guard over the Fire Department who themselves were being fired upon, suddenly people were tasked with their own safety and those who were not prepared suffered. The police are not responsible for the safety of individuals. They serve and protect society. Firearms Instructor, Expert Witness and Veteran Police Officer Massad Ayoob said, “the best cop in the world isn’t any good unless he’s right there, right now”.
And “Sis“, if allowing the ban to expire saves just one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?

You can have mine when you take it “From my cold dead hands”

Brian Fogal