I saw a repeat of the 60 Minutes article about the "assault weapons ban" of '94. Basically it was about how cosmetic features were outlawed so the gun makers came out with guns without those features. Sounds like they were following the law to me. Feinstein and others were complaining about how there was a "loophole" (gotta love that new pop-word) that the gun makers were exploiting.
The Colt spokesman said:
"We started with a crime bill that was supposed to target criminals and we ended up with an "assault rifles" ban which banned cosmetic features on guns for no reason, having nothing to due with how the guns function".
Then the reporter said "The charges are that you are just taking advantages of a loophole in the law"
His reply was:
"Well, that's just flat out not ture. They passed a cosmetic law, and now they are saying 'oh, woe is me', they are changing the cosmetics'...I don't understand the logic."
The Tec-9 was targeted of course, and a gun owner said "That gun is not known for it's quality, but now that it is banned, everyone wants to see it and buy one".
It was also about hi-cap mags and how they are still easy to find (although they failed to mention how EXPENSIVE these mags are and they also didn't mention how expensive the banned guns are today). They just harped on how they are easy to get at gun shows (of course, gotta throw in the gun show hype) and that even though these weapons are banned they are still around.
Feinstein did say, (and I have it on tape), "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the US Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them....'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in'...I would have done it. I could not do that, the votes weren't there."
It was said time and time again that the assault weapons ban greatly increased the sales of assault weapons, making '94 the best year for assault weapons sales EVER. Gun makers said that the Clinton era did more for gun sales than any advertising campaign could. One gun dealer said "That act (of '94) did more to put guns and 'alias assault weapons' out on the streets, in the hands of citizens (than anything the gun industry could have ever done to spur sales)". Banning weapons only makes Americans want them more....what does that show about how people feel about the ban?
The report basically said many times that the "assault weapons ban did NO good, only increased sales of the weapons, made them more desirable to people that had never heard of them, and they are still easy to get."
Feinstien said "Every time we ban a gun, we see the same gun come out with a new name, so that is why I wrote in the 'physical features' clause which outlaws guns with two or more features of an 'assault weapon'". The reporter then said "the new ban backfired again..." and went on te explain how the bans have done nothing (except to raise prices, which they fail to mention.
My only question then is: then why not repeal the ban!?! If it did no good, and actually made more people buy the weapons, (even Feinstein agreed that the ban turned out to make things much worse), then I guess we should repeal the ban.
They also knocked on the fact that gun makers are swapping new guns to Police agencies for used guns so that they can sell the hi-cap magazines. Gun grabbers are crying foul that the gun makers are not following the intent of the law, even though what they are doing is legal.
The fact is, Americans do not sit well with laws telling them what they can or can't do, and what they can or cannot own. The best way to get Americans to buy something is to ban it. Rebellion against government control is in our blood; that is how our country was founded.
When asked how she felt about the way gun makers kept "getting around the law" (or FOLLOWING the law, depening on how you look at it), particulary in regard to hi-cap mags, (which she hates), Feinstein replied: "This just tells me that there is a craven group of people out there who want to make money and are willing to import this stuff by whatever means to make money off the public".
Okay, so what about all the people that are willing to pay ungodly prices for these magazines? No one is feeding off the public, the public wants these magazines enough to pay ten times what they are worth. What does that tell us about what the people really want?
Feinstein actually came across as a nice lady, and really uninformed. I expected a b!tch on wheels who was up on all the issues, but the reporter was constantly filling her in on things that she seemed to be unfamiliar with.
For instance the reporter had to show her a Colt catalog and explain to Feinstein (pointing at the pictures) that they took the flash supressor off the end of the rifles so that they could sell them legally.
Feinstein looked at the catalog dumbfounded and all she could muster for a comment was: "Uuuuuh.....well....that's true..."
Then the reporter told Feinstein that the Tec-9 was being brought back as the AB-9 and asked Feinstein is she knew what AB stands for. Feinstein replied "Uh, no". The reporter informed her that is stood for "After Ban", and Feinstein replied, "Well, uuuuuhh, I will look a good look at that".
I expected a worthy opponent of Feinstein, but overall Feinstein looked kinda dumb. Unfortunatly, she is in office, so it doesn't matter that she is uninformed and stupid, she still holds the power.
Feinstein admitted that "With this congress, no more gun control will be passed", and then the reporter replies "so then, no more going forward..."
Forward? Who said that more gun control is a move in the forward direction?
thaddeus
[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited August 02, 1999).]
The Colt spokesman said:
"We started with a crime bill that was supposed to target criminals and we ended up with an "assault rifles" ban which banned cosmetic features on guns for no reason, having nothing to due with how the guns function".
Then the reporter said "The charges are that you are just taking advantages of a loophole in the law"
His reply was:
"Well, that's just flat out not ture. They passed a cosmetic law, and now they are saying 'oh, woe is me', they are changing the cosmetics'...I don't understand the logic."
The Tec-9 was targeted of course, and a gun owner said "That gun is not known for it's quality, but now that it is banned, everyone wants to see it and buy one".
It was also about hi-cap mags and how they are still easy to find (although they failed to mention how EXPENSIVE these mags are and they also didn't mention how expensive the banned guns are today). They just harped on how they are easy to get at gun shows (of course, gotta throw in the gun show hype) and that even though these weapons are banned they are still around.
Feinstein did say, (and I have it on tape), "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the US Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them....'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in'...I would have done it. I could not do that, the votes weren't there."
It was said time and time again that the assault weapons ban greatly increased the sales of assault weapons, making '94 the best year for assault weapons sales EVER. Gun makers said that the Clinton era did more for gun sales than any advertising campaign could. One gun dealer said "That act (of '94) did more to put guns and 'alias assault weapons' out on the streets, in the hands of citizens (than anything the gun industry could have ever done to spur sales)". Banning weapons only makes Americans want them more....what does that show about how people feel about the ban?
The report basically said many times that the "assault weapons ban did NO good, only increased sales of the weapons, made them more desirable to people that had never heard of them, and they are still easy to get."
Feinstien said "Every time we ban a gun, we see the same gun come out with a new name, so that is why I wrote in the 'physical features' clause which outlaws guns with two or more features of an 'assault weapon'". The reporter then said "the new ban backfired again..." and went on te explain how the bans have done nothing (except to raise prices, which they fail to mention.
My only question then is: then why not repeal the ban!?! If it did no good, and actually made more people buy the weapons, (even Feinstein agreed that the ban turned out to make things much worse), then I guess we should repeal the ban.
They also knocked on the fact that gun makers are swapping new guns to Police agencies for used guns so that they can sell the hi-cap magazines. Gun grabbers are crying foul that the gun makers are not following the intent of the law, even though what they are doing is legal.
The fact is, Americans do not sit well with laws telling them what they can or can't do, and what they can or cannot own. The best way to get Americans to buy something is to ban it. Rebellion against government control is in our blood; that is how our country was founded.
When asked how she felt about the way gun makers kept "getting around the law" (or FOLLOWING the law, depening on how you look at it), particulary in regard to hi-cap mags, (which she hates), Feinstein replied: "This just tells me that there is a craven group of people out there who want to make money and are willing to import this stuff by whatever means to make money off the public".
Okay, so what about all the people that are willing to pay ungodly prices for these magazines? No one is feeding off the public, the public wants these magazines enough to pay ten times what they are worth. What does that tell us about what the people really want?
Feinstein actually came across as a nice lady, and really uninformed. I expected a b!tch on wheels who was up on all the issues, but the reporter was constantly filling her in on things that she seemed to be unfamiliar with.
For instance the reporter had to show her a Colt catalog and explain to Feinstein (pointing at the pictures) that they took the flash supressor off the end of the rifles so that they could sell them legally.
Feinstein looked at the catalog dumbfounded and all she could muster for a comment was: "Uuuuuh.....well....that's true..."
Then the reporter told Feinstein that the Tec-9 was being brought back as the AB-9 and asked Feinstein is she knew what AB stands for. Feinstein replied "Uh, no". The reporter informed her that is stood for "After Ban", and Feinstein replied, "Well, uuuuuhh, I will look a good look at that".
I expected a worthy opponent of Feinstein, but overall Feinstein looked kinda dumb. Unfortunatly, she is in office, so it doesn't matter that she is uninformed and stupid, she still holds the power.
Feinstein admitted that "With this congress, no more gun control will be passed", and then the reporter replies "so then, no more going forward..."
Forward? Who said that more gun control is a move in the forward direction?
thaddeus
[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited August 02, 1999).]
