• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,313
Location
WA USA
Occasionally I read an article online that drives me to contact the reporter that wrote it. This is one of them. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/politics/ar-15-style-guns-ban-1994-2004-background-checks/index.html A portion of it below.

The Colt AR-15, the style of gun on which the Parkland shooting weapon was based, was among those outlawed for 10 years under the 1994 law but is now legal.

Even under the ban, manufacturers of guns used loopholes to continue being able to produce guns very similar to the AR-15 by changing details on the weapon or changing its name.

But they weren't always legal to buy and sell.
Click to expand...
Half the article was trash and I told the reporter so; but politely of course. :) I offered to answer any questions she had and asked if she intended to correct the errors in the article.

I normally don't get a reply when challenging a reporter's claims and I also had to guess at the e-mail address by using lastname.firstname@cnn.com. I always include my name city/state and phone number. Surprise surprise, six minutes later I got a reply. It said "thanks for your input". I don't think I'll be seeing a correction.

Ranb
 
Listening to Marco Rubio's pathetic arguments on CNN's Town Hall tonight left me with a question to your oft repeated argument (same one Rubio makes) that gun regulations won't work because of the language used to describe banned or regulated weapons.

My question is, so what's your solution? Because this semantics argument is weak at best.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Listening to Marco Rubio's pathetic arguments on CNN's Town Hall tonight left me with a question to your oft repeated argument (same one Rubio makes) that gun regulations won't work because of the language used to describe banned or regulated weapons.

My question is, so what's your solution? Because this semantics argument is weak at best.
Click to expand...
Other countries seem to have this sorted already.
 
When the original AR-15 was banned, the manufacturer stopped producing it for a year because of the image problem.
For some reason, having your product kill scores of children is nowadays seen as the best recommendation instead of a reason for abject shame.
 
Ranb said:
Occasionally I read an article online that drives me to contact the reporter that wrote it. This is one of them. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/politics/ar-15-style-guns-ban-1994-2004-background-checks/index.html A portion of it below.


Half the article was trash and I told the reporter so; but politely of course. :) I offered to answer any questions she had and asked if she intended to correct the errors in the article.

I normally don't get a reply when challenging a reporter's claims and I also had to guess at the e-mail address by using lastname.firstname@cnn.com. I always include my name city/state and phone number. Surprise surprise, six minutes later I got a reply. It said "thanks for your input". I don't think I'll be seeing a correction.

Ranb
Click to expand...

It didn't cross your mind to tell us what inaccuracies you think there were in the article?
 
The article about the "ugly and unwanted rifle" that is linked from that one illustrates a piece about civilian "AR-15-style" rifles with a picture of a British squaddie (a guardsman from the blue-red-blue TRF) getting to have a cabby with a yank pal's military (presumably government issued) rifle. Wha...? :confused:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Listening to Marco Rubio's pathetic arguments on CNN's Town Hall tonight left me with a question to your oft repeated argument (same one Rubio makes) that gun regulations won't work because of the language used to describe banned or regulated weapons.
Click to expand...
By that you mean that the bills are written poorly and the resulting laws have no teeth at all and could not possibly be expected to have any affect at all on the crime rate?

My question is, so what's your solution? Because this semantics argument is weak at best.
Click to expand...
My sole argument was that the reporter made up stuff for her article instead of making any effort at all to say something that was correct.
 
MikeG said:
It didn't cross your mind to tell us what inaccuracies you think there were in the article?
Click to expand...
Well, since I've posted over and over about the details of the AWB of 1994 over the years, I thought that sum bitch would be old hat.

Here it is. No guns were actually banned by the AWB94. Existing guns were grandfathered. The only "ban" was on new manufacture and import for a short list of guns by names and those that had 2 of 6 features that Congress didn't like. Semi-auto firearms of the same capability continued to be legally sold and the number of guns increased from 94-04.

I've no encountered anyone who understood the law who believes the AWB94 had any affect on crime at all. The larger crime bill of which it was a part did though.
 
Ranb said:
I've no encountered anyone who understood the law who believes the AWB94 had any affect on crime at all.
Click to expand...

You are probably right.

But it is curious to see how Republicans fight tooth and nail to prevent some similar law to be passed under Obama - the fear is not so much effectiveness than insufficient virtue-signaling.

In that sense, even a deeply flawed gun restriction is better than none, since we can learn from mistakes and improve them.
 
Ranb said:
Well, since I've posted over and over about the details of the AWB of 1994 over the years, I thought that sum bitch would be old hat.

Here it is. No guns were actually banned by the AWB94. Existing guns were grandfathered. The only "ban" was on new manufacture and import for a short list of guns by names and those that had 2 of 6 features that Congress didn't like. Semi-auto firearms of the same capability continued to be legally sold and the number of guns increased from 94-04.

I've no encountered anyone who understood the law who believes the AWB94 had any affect on crime at all. The larger crime bill of which it was a part did though.
Click to expand...

Banning new manufacturing is a ban.
 
Ranb said:
Occasionally I read an article online that drives me to contact the reporter that wrote it. This is one of them. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/politics/ar-15-style-guns-ban-1994-2004-background-checks/index.html A portion of it below.


Half the article was trash and I told the reporter so; but politely of course. :) I offered to answer any questions she had and asked if she intended to correct the errors in the article.

I normally don't get a reply when challenging a reporter's claims and I also had to guess at the e-mail address by using lastname.firstname@cnn.com. I always include my name city/state and phone number. Surprise surprise, six minutes later I got a reply. It said "thanks for your input". I don't think I'll be seeing a correction.

Ranb
Click to expand...

OFF TO THE GOOGLES!

Ok, so they look pretty damn similar. Could you be a swell fella and tell the class where the error lies?
 
Ranb said:
Well, since I've posted over and over about the details of the AWB of 1994 over the years, I thought that sum bitch would be old hat.

Here it is. No guns were actually banned by the AWB94. Existing guns were grandfathered. The only "ban" was on new manufacture and import for a short list of guns by names and those that had 2 of 6 features that Congress didn't like. Semi-auto firearms of the same capability continued to be legally sold and the number of guns increased from 94-04.

I've no encountered anyone who understood the law who believes the AWB94 had any affect on crime at all. The larger crime bill of which it was a part did though.
Click to expand...

You are all about accuracy but you are mixing the 1994 AWB with the 1989 import assault weapons ban. I thought you were all about accuracy?

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html

Blame Bush the first for that one.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are probably right.

But it is curious to see how Republicans fight tooth and nail to prevent some similar law to be passed under Obama - the fear is not so much effectiveness than insufficient virtue-signaling.

In that sense, even a deeply flawed gun restriction is better than none, since we can learn from mistakes and improve them.
Click to expand...
The similar law as you put it had a few important differences. Only 1 of the 6 listed features would be required to make a semi-auto an assault weapon. Grandfathering was limited to the person who owned the gun when the bill was passed. Registering IAW the NFA1934 (like a machine gun) was also required. The only way to dispose of it was to destroy or turn it in to the police. I never saw this version in print, only details from the likes of Feinstein.

The watered down version of the AWB of 2013 eliminated the NFA registration; didn't pass.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You are all about accuracy but you are mixing the 1994 AWB with the 1989 import assault weapons ban. I thought you were all about accuracy?

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html
Click to expand...

Here is a summary of the AWB of 1994. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
In 1989, prior to the enactment of the 1994 legislation, the George H. W. Bush administration had banned the importation of foreign-made, semiautomatic rifles deemed not to have "a legitimate sporting use". .... Following the enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the ATF determined that "certain semiautomatic assault rifles could no longer be imported even though they were permitted to be imported under the 1989 'sporting purposes test' because they had been modified to remove all of their military features other than the ability to accept a detachable magazine", and so in April 1998 "prohibited the importation of 56 such rifles, determining that they did not meet the 'sporting purposes test'".[11]
Click to expand...

I am all about accuracy and sometimes make mistakes on the forum, but this is not one of those times.

Link to HR 3355; https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text

TITLE XI--FIREARMS
Subtitle A--Assault Weapons
(a) Restriction.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture,
transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer
of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under
Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Banning new manufacturing is a ban.
Click to expand...
Banning new manufacture is a ban on new manufacture of assault weapons, not a ban on assault weapons in general. The reporter in the OP implied that assault weapons were illegal to possess from 94-04.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom