City Council Drives Freedom and NRA Out of Columbus
“Two months ago, I was pleased to announce that the National Rifle Association chose the great city of Columbus to host our 136th Annual Meetings and Exhibits in May of 2007,” said LaPierre. “The NRA is not coming to Columbus in 2007. The convention is canceled because last week your City Council unanimously voted to revoke the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in Columbus by banning perfectly legal firearms.”
That's right folks, the NRA has pulled it's 2007 convention out of Columbus, Ohio. This will cost the Columbus area a projected $50 million dollars in revenue.
"The definition of an assault weapon for the purposes of this ban is any semi-automatic rifle having a detachable magazine and other certain types of features. "
So here we are again, another example of banning weapons that "look" dangerous. It has nothing to do with the popularity among criminals or any kind of statistical information on the use of the weapon in actual crimes.
"If it looks dangerous, it must be dangerous, we need to ban it... "
Assault weapons aren't typically used in crimes. Despite their menancing look, their high capacity of rounds, and other features, they are just too large to be attractive to most criminals.
Criminals don't want to be seen coming into a bank with an assault rifle, it gives the employees way too much time to set off the silent alarm. Criminals depend on the element of suprise. It's hard to suprise anyone with an assult weapon in tow.
Assault weapons are also expensive. When you compare the $1,000 you will spend on an AR-15 (legal price) to the $150 to $300 you can spend on a pistol (legal price), the pistol makes more sense. Plus the pistol is a lot easier to hide.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - David
This article is the most acurate common sense, least sensational, stance on the so-called assault weapons ban in a while. You used facts and got to the point. There was no made up stuff about high power, or rapid fire anything. No wonder blogs are dangerous. You have surpassed the major media in less than a week when they have had decades to get the gun issue correct. I would be pissy too. But then again I am a no BS kind of guy.
2 - Dave Nalle
A common sense gun law is one which protects the rights of citizens to own guns.
Dave
3 - Chris
Word.
4 - Matt Paprocki
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would need an assault weapon to begin with.
5 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The Second Amendment enumerates our right to keep and bear arms, which is as essential to our liberty as the other 9 of the Bill of Rights.
It's not about needing (or even wanting) assault weapons, it's about our right to have them.
6 - Matt Paprocki
That doesn't answer my comment. If you buy one, what purpose does it serve? What use would they have to general public?
7 - Nancy
They serve none whatsoever, except insofar as some people want every version of a toy - in this case, firearms - or as some want to stockpile heavy weaponry against some kind of perceived armageddon a la Waco or Ruby Ridge. Basically, the collectors & the nuts.
8 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Right now, the general public has no real need of assault weapons. But that is not a logical justification for banning them.
Since none of us has any ideas about what the future may hold for us in terms of our liberty, it is better to have one and not need one then it is to need one and not have one.
This is why we have the Second Amendment.
9 - E L Frederick
They are a legal firearm, and they are used in competition shooting. They can also be used for hunting.
The standard AR-15 is an ineffective deer rifle. The calibur is far too small to do enough damage to bring a deer down. They are banned from deer hunts becuase they don't do enough damage a deer.
This is true even if you are using the US Millitary surplus ammmo. 5.53 NATO vs .223 calibur. Which, by the way is almost the same ammo.
However for varmits, such as skunk, bobcat, wolf, etc, they can be very effective.
There are high capacity weapons that are not so called assault weapons, but are just as effective and retain most of the same features.
The term "assault weapon" really has no meaning except it describes any semi-automatic weapon with a pistol grip.
Which means that if my son's .22 rimfire rifle had a pistol grip, it would be an "assault" weapon.
Once again, they aren't typically used in crimes due to cost, and size.
10 - Brian
Don't ya love the argument "Who needs them anyway?" Do you NEED a Ferrari that goes 200 MPH? NO! Do you NEED a Hummer that can climb a mountain? NO! But as an American I have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as I so choose! If I want an "assault" rifle to shoot targets why can"t I? If I want to race down the desserted highway why can't I?
Besides that's where the antigun nuts start. Something that everyone can get behind. (Or so they think) Then they get a toe hold and go after something else like ammo.
I had to wait 4 stinking months to get a permit to purchase a firearm. Do you think that the average bank robber is going to do the same? The other argument is the cops are the only ones that should be allowed to have a gun. So, when your house is being burglarized at 2:00AM just tell your little girl "It's alright honey the cops will be here in 3 minutes." Look if you don't want a gun, that's fine, but STOP trying to take mine and my right to let it collect dust in the gun cabinet. That's my $0.02
11 - Nancy
I don't mind people having guns, but I do think they should have to apply, be investigated, and then have to pass a stringent training program/practical exam before being allowed to actually buy one. So, Brian, you had to wait 4 whole months to get your hands on your gun? What's the matter, you can only exist on instant gratification? Are you that immature & your attention span that short? If so, you definitely shouldn't have a gun. If it takes a few months for an application to be processed, and it ensures that mental patients, people w/criminal records, people under restraining orders, the retarded, or other unfit persons don't have access, well & good. As pointed out by others, the biggest problem is that laws restricting sales to felons & other unsuitables are not enforced, nor are the gun dealers who violate them ever punished. Start slamming the gun dealers - especially those few bad apples that do this kind of thing - and I can guarantee felons & others will not be getting their hands on guns.
12 - Margaret Romao Toigo
A country in which only law enforcement has guns cannot be a free country.
The people who would like to repeal our Second Amendment get traction with the public with emotional arguments that appeal to fear. There are no logical arguments to support the restriction of any civil right.
I like the one about how our Founders could not have predicted the many advances made in firearms technology in the last 2 centuries when they wrote the Second Amendment.
But the same people who make that assertion will become filled with righteous outrage -- as will I, too -- at the notion that our Founders could not have predicted that there would someday be such a thing as Internet pornography so the First Amendment does not apply to it.
13 - Nancy
The Founders didn't know about a lot of things we have today, but that doesn't mean we haven't found a way to apply the law to them. Consider airplanes, trains, cars, non-sailing ships, 99% of medical & dental procedures & other modern technology including electricity, telephones, television, utilities, even ol' Ben Franklin's printing press - all would be unrecognizable to The Founders. Probably the only familiar items they'd see today would be the skanky politicians. Some things do never change, but most have.
14 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Nancy wrote: "Start slamming the gun dealers"
Now, there's some common sense! The Second Amendment enumerates our right to keep and bear arms, but there is no right to sell them to the public, which should be a privilege requiring a revocable license.
It is one thing to require a criminal background check before the purchase of a firearm can be completed, but it is quite another to require American citizens to apply for and obtain a license or permit before they are allowed to make that purchase.
The first scenario ensures that convicted felons whose post-incarceration obligations have not been completed, people with outstanding arrest warrants or others whose right to keep and bear arms has been duly denied by a court of law cannot legally obtain firearms.
However, the latter case makes an essential civil right into a privilege that can be arbitrarily curtailed or revoked without due process.
It is not a matter of patience. If Brian had been able to apply for and obtain a permit to purchase a firearm in only 4 minutes, his Second Amendment rights would still have gone unrecognized.
15 - Nancy
I say the gun dealers, because it would seem from what I've read recently in the w. post & other publications that most dealers are honest; but there are a few out there that are responsible for something like 90% of the illegal gun sales out there. Make it not worth the cost, one way or another, & sources of illegal or 'bad' gun sales would dry up pretty fast, I'll bet.
16 - Dave Nalle
>>I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would need an assault weapon to begin with.<<
Then you don't know what an assault weapon is, and as intended by the anti-gun folks, the term has successfully been used to scare you into fearing something relatively harmless.
Many, many guns are legal which are far more dangerous and effective as combat weapons than most of the so-called 'assault weapons'. I'd be far more afraid of someone with a good automatic hunting rifle than an assault weapon, because he would have an accurate weapon with a high rate of fire and a powerful cartridge which could kill me. All most 'assault weapons' have is a high rate of fire.
Dave
17 - Nancy
.22s aren't very big handguns, but they make an awful mess inside yer carcass.
18 - Matt Paprocki
I never said anything about banning them, I simply asked what purpose they served. I have my answer, which seems to be what I believed all along.
19 - MSG John
As a military guy, I know the difference between an assault rifle (my duty weapon, an M-16 which is a full-auto firearm AKA a machinegun) and a so-called "assault weapon" (a redundant term which is really not well defined--a rock is an assault weapon) like a semi-auto only AR-15. (The Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 had nothing to do with machineguns)
I own an AR-15. I shoot recreationally with my AR-15. I shoot competitions with my AR-15. I have hunted with my AR-15 (I have to use a special magazine limited to 5 rounds for hunting most things). My AR-15 makes a great ranch rifle.
Here is a shocker for many people--my deer hunting rifle is 7 times as powerful as my AR-15. It shoots bigger, heavier bullets at the same velocity and can project the same power at 700 yards as the AR can at 100 yards.
Licensing, registration, and training requirements solve very little and must be considered in the same light as requiring all those things to exercise your freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. Putting a precondition on a right is frowned upon by the courts and makes it a privilege, not a right.
Gun dealers sell firearms in accordance with federal and state laws. If they violate those laws, they can be put in jail and have their licenses revoked and inventory siezed. No one is asking to change that. What is happening though is that dealers are being sued for making a legal sale with the express intent of putting the dealer out of business, just because the person who bought the firearm (or who bought it from that person) misused the firearm. Manufacturers, who rarely sell directly to dealers and even more rarely directly to individuals (requires different processes), are being sued because a dealer, who got a one of their firearms through a third party distributer, made a legal sale and the firearm was misused by someone. Again, the primary purpose of such a lawsuit is to put the manufacturer out of business.
Here is a novel idea--let's hold those who misuse the firearm responsible for misusing it.
Further, the idea of protecting against frivolous lawsuits protects more than just the firearm industry and the firearm industry would still be able to be sued for truly defective products.
20 - MSG John
Nancy,
The ATF and FBI do slam dealers who violate the law. The ATF has a reputation for being more than a bit overzealous in doing so, resulting in at least two Congressional investigations into it over stepping its bounds (part of the Treasury Dept, the ATF is primarily responsible for making sure the books are correct, but it thought ofitself as a police organization and that is where a lot of problem started--now the law enforcement responsibilities have been firmly and clearly transferred to the FBI where they more correctly belong)
21 - MSG John
NOTE: The first semi-auto hunting rifle first appeared in the US about 102 years ago. Semi-auto handguns--112 years ago. In 1907 you could get a high capacity magazine for your 9mm--32 rounds.
As for the founding fathers not being able to forsee firearm developments, they had already seen a couple. The rifle was replacing smoothbores and used with great effectiveness against the British (who had smoothbores). Machinegun designs date back to Leonardo de Vinci. Several of our founding fathers had a knack for inventing and improving things. The obvious ways to improve a firearm are: better range, better accuracy, better loading rate, easier to transport, more effective ammo, etc. While they may not have forseen an M-16 per se, they could forsee the advances which have occured.
22 - Dave Nalle
>>Here is a shocker for many people--my deer hunting rifle is 7 times as powerful as my AR-15. It shoots bigger, heavier bullets at the same velocity and can project the same power at 700 yards as the AR can at 100 yards.<<
That's the point I was making. I'd much rather have someone shooting at me with an AR-15 than with a 30-06 with a good hunting scope on it, assuming I was some distance away. And if I was close up I'd be more scared of a shotgun.
Dave
23 - MSG John
Felons and others get most of their firearms from sources other than dealers.
A person should not have to wait 4 months to be able to purchase a firearm. They should be able to walk in and walk out. Any checks should not take 4 months to complete.
24 - Kristen
MSG John, I agree. There is no reason why background checks should take 4 months. Here in Oregon, the longest I have had to wait to purchase a firearm is 30 minutes. This included a full fingerprinting and background check.
Imagine a situation where a woman is purchasing a gun in case she may need to defend herself and her home against an abusive ex-husband or boyfriend. How on earth is waiting 4 months to be able to purchase a firearm going to help her?
I'm a moderate Democrat...but one issue where I have real trouble with the traditional party line is on gun control. Seems to me that the party supports a woman's right to abortion, a woman's right to equal pay, a woman's right not to be sexually harassed in the workplace...but not a woman's right to defend herself. A little bit hypocritical, perhaps?
25 - Matt Paprocki
And there's no other way for a woman to defend herself?