Gun Control not the problem here.

[elvis]

I have been a gun owner since the age of twelve. However the proliferation of semi-automatics with high rates of fire, and magazines holding as much as 100 rounds creates a policeman's worst nightmare. The kind of people that put these weopons on a pedistal are precisely the kind that go over the edge and use them as we have so often seen them used in this nation.

Bring back the ban on assault weapons | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com


There is, right now, one massive and willful gap in our memory: Five years ago, Congress failed to extend a flawed but useful ban on the sale of 19 types of firearms commonly known as "assault weapons" - semiautomatics that generally feature high-capacity ammunition magazines, greater muzzle velocity and other military-style designs.

The ban was prompted in part by the concerns of law enforcement agencies about the growing popularity of the point-and-spray weapons among drug dealers, gangs and others.

But Congress let the ban lapse in 2004 despite calls by the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers to renew it. President George W. Bush also had said he would sign the extension if passed.

This month, 28-year-old Michael McLendon provided a chilling reminder of what such firearms can do. He used two high-powered weapons, an SKS and a Bushmaster AR-15, and a .38 caliber handgun on a two-county rampage in southern Alabama. He killed 10 people - including his mother, his grandmother, a deputy's wife and her 19-month-old daughter - and wounded six others before committing suicide.

and people who are willing to kill cops surely would OBEY a law banning assault rifles.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're in with Pub now Rock, I'll note your posts but I won't bother doing anything other than gliding over them, noting the usual rubbish and then turning to a post that has actual substance as opposed to ideological ranting. If by some accident of the cosmos either of you actually post anything worth bothering with then I may respond. You're not on ignore, you're just on "I can't be bothered".

Of course, because you are WRONG and I have proven it. Want me to post some more evidence that your claim gun control has nothing to do with crime is bogus?

What evidence? How can there be more evidence when I haven't seen any evidence in the first instance?

Blind and stupid. I provided the information easily found with a 2 second search of the internet. Australia enacted their current laws because a man shot 35 people. They did it claiming it would cut down on CRIME.

Britain enacted their laws for the same reason, because of a couple sensationalized shootings. I provided the links to both.

The US has ALWAYS claimed every new Gun Control law is to cut down on crime.

You haven't a leg or Kangaroo tail to stand on. You know it and so will just pretend to ignore what you do not want to see. Denial is no answer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have been a gun owner since the age of twelve. However the proliferation of semi-automatics with high rates of fire, and magazines holding as much as 100 rounds creates a policeman's worst nightmare. The kind of people that put these weopons on a pedistal are precisely the kind that go over the edge and use them as we have so often seen them used in this nation.

Bring back the ban on assault weapons | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com


There is, right now, one massive and willful gap in our memory: Five years ago, Congress failed to extend a flawed but useful ban on the sale of 19 types of firearms commonly known as "assault weapons" - semiautomatics that generally feature high-capacity ammunition magazines, greater muzzle velocity and other military-style designs.

The ban was prompted in part by the concerns of law enforcement agencies about the growing popularity of the point-and-spray weapons among drug dealers, gangs and others.

But Congress let the ban lapse in 2004 despite calls by the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers to renew it. President George W. Bush also had said he would sign the extension if passed.

This month, 28-year-old Michael McLendon provided a chilling reminder of what such firearms can do. He used two high-powered weapons, an SKS and a Bushmaster AR-15, and a .38 caliber handgun on a two-county rampage in southern Alabama. He killed 10 people - including his mother, his grandmother, a deputy's wife and her 19-month-old daughter - and wounded six others before committing suicide.

It is Unconstitutional to ban those weapons as established by the Supreme Court ruling in 1939 that establishes that a weapon MUST be a usable weapon for a military, the very criteria used to BAN those weapons as well as the latest ruling that CLEARLY establishes that the Second Amendment IS a PERSONAL RIGHT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here we go.

Gun Control in Australia --- Chaos Down Under

The problem began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked and the government reacted quickly. Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment. There are three major political parties in Australia: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist camp (Labor Party), and the ultra left (Australian Democratic Party) --- which tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the expense of freedom.

Gee who would have thought a shooting was the cause of Australia's gun laws when Dumb Ass keeps claiming otherwise.

Here read it again you dip stick.

 

[elvis]

I have been a gun owner since the age of twelve. However the proliferation of semi-automatics with high rates of fire, and magazines holding as much as 100 rounds creates a policeman's worst nightmare. The kind of people that put these weopons on a pedistal are precisely the kind that go over the edge and use them as we have so often seen them used in this nation.

Bring back the ban on assault weapons | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com


There is, right now, one massive and willful gap in our memory: Five years ago, Congress failed to extend a flawed but useful ban on the sale of 19 types of firearms commonly known as "assault weapons" - semiautomatics that generally feature high-capacity ammunition magazines, greater muzzle velocity and other military-style designs.

The ban was prompted in part by the concerns of law enforcement agencies about the growing popularity of the point-and-spray weapons among drug dealers, gangs and others.

But Congress let the ban lapse in 2004 despite calls by the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers to renew it. President George W. Bush also had said he would sign the extension if passed.

This month, 28-year-old Michael McLendon provided a chilling reminder of what such firearms can do. He used two high-powered weapons, an SKS and a Bushmaster AR-15, and a .38 caliber handgun on a two-county rampage in southern Alabama. He killed 10 people - including his mother, his grandmother, a deputy's wife and her 19-month-old daughter - and wounded six others before committing suicide.

It is Unconstitutional to ban those weapons as established by the Supreme Court ruling in 1939 that establishes that a weapon MUST be a usable weapon for a military, the very criteria used to BAN those weapons as well as the latest ruling that CLEARLY establishes that the Second Amendment IS a PERSONAL RIGHT.

old rock doesn't care about the second amendment, only his socialist agenda.

 

[Diuretic]

Of course, because you are WRONG and I have proven it. Want me to post some more evidence that your claim gun control has nothing to do with crime is bogus?

What evidence? How can there be more evidence when I haven't seen any evidence in the first instance?

Blind and stupid. I provided the information easily found with a 2 second search of the internet. Australia enacted their current laws because a man shot 35 people. They did it claiming it would cut down on CRIME.

Britain enacted their laws for the same reason, because of a couple sensationalized shootings. I provided the links to both.

The US has ALWAYS claimed every new Gun Control law is to cut down on crime.

You haven't a leg or Kangaroo tail to stand on. You know it and so will just pretend to ignore what you do not want to see. Denial is no answer.

You have a problem with both your examples. Gun control laws were already in place in both the UK and Australia. The purpose of gun control laws which were in place before 1996 in Australia was and is to ensure harm minimisation. Registration of firearms, licensing of users - all designed to minimise harm and to give the government information on who had firearms and what they were. A firearm has to be registered here, among other things, to show that it's not a dangerous, faulty or otherwise prohibited firearm - harm minimisation, not crime control.

 

[Diuretic]

Here we go.

Gun Control in Australia --- Chaos Down Under

The problem began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked and the government reacted quickly. Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment. There are three major political parties in Australia: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist camp (Labor Party), and the ultra left (Australian Democratic Party) --- which tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the expense of freedom.

Gee who would have thought a shooting was the cause of Australia's gun laws when Dumb Ass keeps claiming otherwise.

Here read it again you dip stick.

Read my rebuttal fuckwit.

 

[Agnapostate]

The stupidest thing here is the posting of anecdotal "evidence" in order to try and make a case one way or the other.

 

[Diuretic]

The stupidest thing here is the posting of anecdotal "evidence" in order to try and make a case one way or the other.

Pshaw - I've got more than anecdotal, I just want to .....keep my powder dry

 

[DamnYankee]

A knife, quick lets ban all knives.

Remind me again how Gun Control is the answer to crime. Massachussets has some of the most strict gun laws around. Sure prevented this from happening ehh?

No one ever said gun control was the answer to crime.

Gun control can help with the lethality of crime.

If this guy had an assault rifle, there would probably be some dead cops now.

Just ask the cops in Oakland. They just lost 4 of their brothers.

Have you read the legislative definition of "assault" weapon? Have you read the "exemptions" of persons permitted the use of "assault" weapons? Isn't it the least bit interesting that law enforcement officers NEED "assault" weapons, when a .45 Magnum to the knees would serve the purpose?

 

[Diuretic]

A knife, quick lets ban all knives.

Remind me again how Gun Control is the answer to crime. Massachussets has some of the most strict gun laws around. Sure prevented this from happening ehh?

No one ever said gun control was the answer to crime.

Gun control can help with the lethality of crime.

If this guy had an assault rifle, there would probably be some dead cops now.

Just ask the cops in Oakland. They just lost 4 of their brothers.

Have you read the legislative definition of "assault" weapon? Have you read the "exemptions" of persons permitted the use of "assault" weapons? Isn't it the least bit interesting that law enforcement officers NEED "assault" weapons, when a .45 Magnum to the knees would serve the purpose?

Who shoots at knees? Centre mass only, heck who could hit a knee unless it was a frigging giant pachyderm even then you'd only enrage the poor animal.

And a handgun is useless up against a fully automatic military-calibre weapon. Cops should have the biggest, best, BFGs available.

 

[DamnYankee]

No one ever said gun control was the answer to crime.

Gun control can help with the lethality of crime.

If this guy had an assault rifle, there would probably be some dead cops now.

Just ask the cops in Oakland. They just lost 4 of their brothers.

Have you read the legislative definition of "assault" weapon? Have you read the "exemptions" of persons permitted the use of "assault" weapons? Isn't it the least bit interesting that law enforcement officers NEED "assault" weapons, when a .45 Magnum to the knees would serve the purpose?

Who shoots at knees? Centre mass only, heck who could hit a knee unless it was a frigging giant pachyderm even then you'd only enrage the poor animal.

And a handgun is useless up against a fully automatic military-calibre weapon. Cops should have the biggest, best, BFGs available.

Yeah... O-kay.... The very person who was just arguing (with such colorful language) about "crime control" vs. "gun control" would have us believe that cops are never the bad guys, and that they aren't required to re-test their on-the-job firing skills. Only "the good guys" should have "assault" weapons. BTW, I asked if the legislative definition of "assault" weapons had been read. Any takers?

 

[Diuretic]

Have you read the legislative definition of "assault" weapon? Have you read the "exemptions" of persons permitted the use of "assault" weapons? Isn't it the least bit interesting that law enforcement officers NEED "assault" weapons, when a .45 Magnum to the knees would serve the purpose?

Who shoots at knees? Centre mass only, heck who could hit a knee unless it was a frigging giant pachyderm even then you'd only enrage the poor animal.

And a handgun is useless up against a fully automatic military-calibre weapon. Cops should have the biggest, best, BFGs available.

Yeah... O-kay.... The very person who was just arguing (with such colorful language) about "crime control" vs. "gun control" would have us believe that cops are never the bad guys, and that they aren't required to re-test their on-the-job firing skills. Only "the good guys" should have "assault" weapons. BTW, I asked if the legislative definition of "assault" weapons had been read. Any takers?

Ooooh putting words in my keyboard eh? Where did I say cops are never the bad guys? I didn't. So don't - and I don't give a fuck if the colourful language offends - fucking well do it.

Yes only the good guys should be allowed to (lawfully) have fully automatic weapons.

And crime control is different from firearms control laws and I would be interested to read any contributions you might have on that topic.

 

[DamnYankee]

Who shoots at knees? Centre mass only, heck who could hit a knee unless it was a frigging giant pachyderm even then you'd only enrage the poor animal.

And a handgun is useless up against a fully automatic military-calibre weapon. Cops should have the biggest, best, BFGs available.

Yeah... O-kay.... The very person who was just arguing (with such colorful language) about "crime control" vs. "gun control" would have us believe that cops are never the bad guys, and that they aren't required to re-test their on-the-job firing skills. Only "the good guys" should have "assault" weapons. BTW, I asked if the legislative definition of "assault" weapons had been read. Any takers?

Ooooh putting words in my keyboard eh? Where did I say cops are never the bad guys? I didn't. So don't - and I don't give a fuck if the colourful language offends - fucking well do it.

Yes only the good guys should be allowed to (lawfully) have fully automatic weapons.

And crime control is different from firearms control laws and I would be interested to read any contributions you might have on that topic.

Not putting words in your mouth. The implication is clear from your own words: "Cops should have the biggest, best, BFGs available."

Oh, and I'm not offended by your colorful language. When deemed appropriate, mine will be as colorful as yours. I was just amused at your seeming inability to speak in black and white.... <snicker>

Now, the problem with your argument re. "the good guys" being permitted the use of "fully automatic weapons" isn't only that they don't really need them, but that you're arguing a point that's invalid since they are not fully automatic -- thus the reason for asking if the definition had been read (and I should have included understood).

excerpt:
The 10-year ban, which began on Sept. 13, 1994, and which was disingenuously named the Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act because it exempted various firearms (a pretense with no tangible effect), defined semi-automatics as “assault weapons” if they had more than one external attachment.35 In crime-prevention terms, this approach was pointless because, as noted, the attachments are useless to criminals and are common to other firearms. The ban defined “large” ammunition magazines as those holding more than 10 rounds.

For propaganda purposes, President Clinton and the Brady Campaign claimed that the ban reduced the number of “assault weapons.”36 However, the facts indicate otherwise. The ban did not prohibit guns already made, motivating its Senate sponsor, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), to say, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States 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.”37 The ban also had no effect on foreign-made “assault weapons,” such as AK-47s and Uzis, because the BATF had banned their importation in 1989. And it didn’t prohibit the importation of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

The ban also didn’t prohibit the manufacture of any guns entirely, it prohibited making certain ones with their standard complement of external attachments. Thus, for example, during the ban AR-15s were made with a pistol-like grip, but without a flash suppressor, bayonet mount and, in the case of carbine models, adjustable-length stock. In practical terms the most significant thing about the ban was that it prohibited the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, the majority of which are standard-equipment for handguns not defined as “assault weapons.”38

Rather than reducing the number of military-looking semi-automatics and standard-size magazines, the ban caused their numbers to increase more than they would have otherwise. As the ban approached, consumer demand rose and manufacturers increased production accordingly. And when the ban expired, demand for the original, multi-attachment versions of the guns and the standard magazines soared. Moreover, during the ban, hundreds of thousands of one-attachment versions of the banned guns and millions of imported standard-size magazines were sold.39

Why Congress Refused to Renew the Federal “Assault Weapon” Ban
A study of the ban mandated by Congress concluded, “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban, and the ban’s 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.40 A follow-up study found “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [many of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds] were less likely to produce a death than those involving revolvers [which typically hold five or six rounds]” and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.”41 Crime reports and felon surveys showed that “assault weapons” were used in only 1-2 percent of violent crimes before the ban; 42 crime victim surveys indicated the figure was 0.25 percent.43 In the 10 years before the ban, murders committed without guns outnumbered those with “assault weapons” by about 37-to-1.44 Also, most crimes committed with such guns could be committed with other guns, and some could be committed without guns.45

Moreover, violent crime, which began decreasing three years before the ban, continued decreasing as the number of firearms, including “assault weapons” and other semi-automatics, increased. This is true whether based upon the Violence Policy Center’s proposition that virtually every semi-automatic rifle and shotgun should be considered an “assault weapon,”46 or its fall-back position, that “assault weapon” should be redefined to include not only multiple-attachment guns banned in 1994, but one-attachment guns made to comply with the ban.47

Between 1991-2006, U.S. total violent crime and murder rates decreased 38 percent and 42 percent, respectively and preliminary reports from the FBI indicate that rates dropped further in 2007.48 Meanwhile, the number of privately-owned firearms has risen by more than 75 million, about one-third of them being semi-automatics, and about 15 percent of semi-automatics being “assault weapons.”49 The number of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds rose by 50 million during the years of the ban alone, according to the ban’s House sponsor.50

Also, the ban’s 10-round limit on new ammunition magazines infringed the right of self-defense. Police officers carry multiple standard-size magazines for good reason—their protection. Other citizens have the same right to protect themselves, and the arbitrary magazine limit potentially put them at a disadvantage against criminals. The limit had other flaws too. Criminals who fire guns fire only three shots on average,51 and those that fire a greater number could defeat a magazine limit by carrying multiple magazines or multiple guns. There was no evidence to justify a limit on magazine size, let alone the arbitrary number of 10 rounds.

One can hope that Congress also objected to the truly un-American tone of the rhetorical question that the Brady Campaign repeated ad nauseum during the ban, believing that it alone shouted down any possible opposition to gun prohibition. The question, “who needs an assault weapon,?”52 was, of course, illegitimate. In America, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, it is upon those who wish to restrict rights, and there is no evidence that an “assault weapon” ban reduces crime. An irrational bias against guns, mixed with an assumed sense of intellectual, social or cultural superiority to gun owners, may seem to gun control supporters like sufficient grounds to ban firearms, but such notions are insufficient in a democracy.

NRA-ILA : Clinton Gun Ban

 

[Diuretic]

No, come on, where did I say the cop are never the bad guys? I never did. I wouldn't ever make that point. Stating that only cops should have BFG (I love that acronym, all the way from Doom days) is not saying that cops are never the bad guys. I will take issue with that.

Re the mechanism. It's up to each society/community/jurisdiction to decide what it will allow private citizens (as opposed to the military and cops) to use. For mine a society is nuts if it allows fully automatic weapons to be available to other than the military and the police, but that's just my opinion and should be treated as such - an opinion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, come on, where did I say the cop are never the bad guys? I never did. I wouldn't ever make that point. Stating that only cops should have BFG (I love that acronym, all the way from Doom days) is not saying that cops are never the bad guys. I will take issue with that.

Re the mechanism. It's up to each society/community/jurisdiction to decide what it will allow private citizens (as opposed to the military and cops) to use. For mine a society is nuts if it allows fully automatic weapons to be available to other than the military and the police, but that's just my opinion and should be treated as such - an opinion.

Note again that the assault weapon ban was sold as a CRIME PREVENTION measure.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, come on, where did I say the cop are never the bad guys? I never did. I wouldn't ever make that point. Stating that only cops should have BFG (I love that acronym, all the way from Doom days) is not saying that cops are never the bad guys. I will take issue with that.

And I took issue with the implication -- that so long as "law enforcement" is in control of the BFG, they can be counted on to use them appropriately. The name Rodney King mean anything to you? Just imagine how he would have made out if the cops went after him with BFG....

Re the mechanism. It's up to each society/community/jurisdiction to decide what it will allow private citizens (as opposed to the military and cops) to use. For mine a society is nuts if it allows fully automatic weapons to be available to other than the military and the police, but that's just my opinion and should be treated as such - an opinion.

Opinion duly noted, as is the insistence that society has, at its disposal "fully automatic weapons".

 

[Diuretic]

No, come on, where did I say the cop are never the bad guys? I never did. I wouldn't ever make that point. Stating that only cops should have BFG (I love that acronym, all the way from Doom days) is not saying that cops are never the bad guys. I will take issue with that.

Re the mechanism. It's up to each society/community/jurisdiction to decide what it will allow private citizens (as opposed to the military and cops) to use. For mine a society is nuts if it allows fully automatic weapons to be available to other than the military and the police, but that's just my opinion and should be treated as such - an opinion.

Note again that the assault weapon ban was sold as a CRIME PREVENTION measure.

Their fuckup, I would have advised otherwise but them's the breaks.

 

[Diuretic]

No, come on, where did I say the cop are never the bad guys? I never did. I wouldn't ever make that point. Stating that only cops should have BFG (I love that acronym, all the way from Doom days) is not saying that cops are never the bad guys. I will take issue with that.

And I took issue with the implication -- that so long as "law enforcement" is in control of the BFG, they can be counted on to use them appropriately. The name Rodney King mean anything to you? Just imagine how he would have made out if the cops went after him with BFG....

Re the mechanism. It's up to each society/community/jurisdiction to decide what it will allow private citizens (as opposed to the military and cops) to use. For mine a society is nuts if it allows fully automatic weapons to be available to other than the military and the police, but that's just my opinion and should be treated as such - an opinion.

Opinion duly noted, as is the insistence that society has, at its disposal "fully automatic weapons".

You're bringing in King?

Totally irrelevant to the issue. You're grasping now. You're now trying to defend your other irrelevance, the false claim you made against me that somehow I was trying to portray cops as good guys all the time. Your credibiliy is now highly suspect.

Try to get back on topic.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, come on, where did I say the cop are never the bad guys? I never did. I wouldn't ever make that point. Stating that only cops should have BFG (I love that acronym, all the way from Doom days) is not saying that cops are never the bad guys. I will take issue with that.

Re the mechanism. It's up to each society/community/jurisdiction to decide what it will allow private citizens (as opposed to the military and cops) to use. For mine a society is nuts if it allows fully automatic weapons to be available to other than the military and the police, but that's just my opinion and should be treated as such - an opinion.

Note again that the assault weapon ban was sold as a CRIME PREVENTION measure.

He/she (the Aussie) doesn't appear to have read that the "sell" didn't work out very well.

Why Congress Refused to Renew the Federal “Assault Weapon” Ban

A study of the ban mandated by Congress concluded, “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban, and the ban’s 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.40 A follow-up study found “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [many of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds] were less likely to produce a death than those involving revolvers [which typically hold five or six rounds]” and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.”41 Crime reports and felon surveys showed that “assault weapons” were used in only 1-2 percent of violent crimes before the ban; 42 crime victim surveys indicated the figure was 0.25 percent.43 In the 10 years before the ban, murders committed without guns outnumbered those with “assault weapons” by about 37-to-1.44 Also, most crimes committed with such guns could be committed with other guns, and some could be committed without guns.45

Moreover, violent crime, which began decreasing three years before the ban, continued decreasing as the number of firearms, including “assault weapons” and other semi-automatics, increased. This is true whether based upon the Violence Policy Center’s proposition that virtually every semi-automatic rifle and shotgun should be considered an “assault weapon,”46 or its fall-back position, that “assault weapon” should be redefined to include not only multiple-attachment guns banned in 1994, but one-attachment guns made to comply with the ban.47

Between 1991-2006, U.S. total violent crime and murder rates decreased 38 percent and 42 percent, respectively and preliminary reports from the FBI indicate that rates dropped further in 2007.48 Meanwhile, the number of privately-owned firearms has risen by more than 75 million, about one-third of them being semi-automatics, and about 15 percent of semi-automatics being “assault weapons.”49 The number of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds rose by 50 million during the years of the ban alone, according to the ban’s House sponsor.50

Also, the ban’s 10-round limit on new ammunition magazines infringed the right of self-defense. Police officers carry multiple standard-size magazines for good reason—their protection. Other citizens have the same right to protect themselves, and the arbitrary magazine limit potentially put them at a disadvantage against criminals. The limit had other flaws too. Criminals who fire guns fire only three shots on average,51 and those that fire a greater number could defeat a magazine limit by carrying multiple magazines or multiple guns. There was no evidence to justify a limit on magazine size, let alone the arbitrary number of 10 rounds.

One can hope that Congress also objected to the truly un-American tone of the rhetorical question that the Brady Campaign repeated ad nauseum during the ban, believing that it alone shouted down any possible opposition to gun prohibition. The question, “who needs an assault weapon,?”52 was, of course, illegitimate. In America, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, it is upon those who wish to restrict rights, and there is no evidence that an “assault weapon” ban reduces crime. An irrational bias against guns, mixed with an assumed sense of intellectual, social or cultural superiority to gun owners, may seem to gun control supporters like sufficient grounds to ban firearms, but such notions are insufficient in a democracy.

NRA-ILA : Clinton Gun Ban
__________________