Officers want to renew ban

[MrBenchley]

"Sixty-two Iowa police chiefs and sheriffs have joined more than 1,000 of their counterparts nationwide in asking President Bush and Congress to renew and strengthen the federal Assault Weapons Ban set to expire Sept. 14.
The chiefs, including those from Atlantic, Avoca, Clarinda, Denison, Harlan, Red Oak, Shenandoah and Villisca, signed a resolution requesting the action, according to Leah Woodward, a spokesperson with Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence.
John Johnson, IPGV executive director, said police support for the ban has not been difficult to get.
"The men and women who protect us are aware of the devastating firepower of these guns and the damage they cause in our communities."

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12434622&BRD=2554&PAG=461&dept_id=507134&rfi=6

[CO Liberal]

1. More Than 1,000 Police Chiefs & SheriffsSay "Renew The Ban"....

And one cop in Corpus Christi says "It doesn't make any difference".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=73076&mesg_id=73076

Who ya gonna believe? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

3. And the one in Corpus Christi wants it stronger

Yeah, but Larry Pratt thinks they should be on the market....

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. devistating moreso than what?

i can get a gun thast fires the same ammunition as the "banned" ones

[MrBenchley]

4. Then you don't really need an assault weapon

do you?

[Gord]

5. Then you don't need to worry about them

do you?

[7th_Sephiroth]

6. the point is

the assault weapon ban is purely cosmetic, and your being fed bullshit

[MrBenchley]

10. Not even close to true....

And if it's just cosmetic, then you don't need one, do you?

But it ain't, which is why our "pro gun democrats" are beating their meat here about getting their hands on assault weapons....

[7th_Sephiroth]

12. its not allways about the need

if we only got what we needed, we would just eat suppliment pills, live in 3 room houses, drive 1 seater cars ect. life isint allways about just living off what you need, and were free to choose what we want, if we can afford a house with 9 bedrooms on 40 acres of land, more power to you, enjoy, if i want a gun thats easier to grip and a larger magazine so i dont have to reload than that should be my right, too

[MrBenchley]

15. Ahahahahahahaha...

So we should let thugs and crazies get their hands on assault weapons because you want a big house....

[7th_Sephiroth]

30. *rotflmao* what an idiot

you missed the whole point,the point is the only weapons that are "banned" are the ones that look scary,it doesent stop certain power or calibur weapons from being made, so it is useless

[MrBenchley]

34. Yeah, that's what I've thought throughout...

Of course, the gun lobby already showed that "it's only cosmetic" crap for the outright LIE it is.

[7th_Sephiroth]

36. *lol*

what do you have against my right to bear whatever arm i wish?

[MrBenchley]

39. Wow, what a silly question....

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

43. I found the question silly...

I found the idea that you think you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon silly...

I find your pretense that it's the "pinko commie hippy" who wants these guns and not the Aryan Nation silly....

But then what else is new....

[7th_Sephiroth]

50. actually

they want automatic weapons, not assault weapons

[MrBenchley]

51. If you want to post silly statements

don't let me stop you....

It isn't like there's anything in the RKBA repertoire that makes any real sense....

[MrBenchley]

9. Of course I do....

as does everybody....

Assault weapons are a public menace...despite the dishonest spin presented by "enthusiasts." That's why better than 70% of the voting public wants the ban renewed and strengthened.

[FeebMaster]

16. How are they a public menace?

They are rarely used in crime after all.

[skippythwndrdog]

38. There you go again.

The AWB bans not one single AW. Go ahead, show me one that's banned by the AWB. You can't because there are none.

[library_max]

67. There's that Reagan line again. /nt

[el_gato]

7. of course they do

[pnb]

8. If they want them banned...

...then they should ban them in their jurisdictions. Are they afraid of losing votes themselves so they try to pass the buck to someone else?

[MrBenchley]

11. Better yet, let's renew the federal ban

and keep the damn things off the market....

[pnb]

13. That doesn't really address my question

Again, why don't they just ban the weapons themselves?

And your solution will not keep the damn things off the market anyway and is useless as well.

[MrBenchley]

14. Yeah, it does....

And if the ban was so useless the gun lobby wouldn't have pulled its disgraceful "immunity from liability" bill....nor would gun nuts all over the internet be spanking their monkeys over the prospect of getting their sweaty shaky hands on these.....

[goju]

18. I think the whole thing comes down to a slippery slope

Its not that anyone is really worried about whether or not a 30 round clip is more deadly than a 10 round clip, the gun groups just dont want to see a slippery slope of more and more restriction but the gun control groups do. I never could understand how anyone could support the assault weapons ban but I think everyone knows its just window dressing in terms of actual crime reduction. Its political, nothing more.

[MrBenchley]

19. Gee, I can't imagine who thinks

assault weapons belong on the civilian market....or what kind of specimen wants one...

"the gun groups just dont want to see a slippery slope of more and more restriction"
So what? The two major ones are basically fronts for far right wing extremists.

[goju]

27. I cant imagine

who wants to reinterpret the constitution every time it suits them. Maybe politicians pandering to ignorant and frightened citizens? Sound familiar?

The tactics are no different from the bush administration, its just different issues. Gay marriage, the patriot act, and the war on Iraq are perfect examples. Its nothing short of pandering to a fringe base in exchange for votes. Gun scare tactics use the same language, same selective interpretation, same mis-information, and the same demagoguery as the christian fundamentalist right. Its not hard to recognize if you are willing to see it for what it is.

[MrBenchley]

28. The gun lobby and right wingers do....

In fact, the Constitution and the Second Amendment have been interpreted consistently as granting no individual right to a popgun. And there's nothing in the least unconstitutional about banning assault weapons.

"Gun scare tactics use the same language"
Horseshit. Furthermore it's hilarious to pretend that the same reich wing fuckwits pushing the rest of that rancid agenda aren't the same ones hawking this bogus "gun rights" crap.

"Its not hard to recognize if you are willing to see it"
Nope...the gun lobby even put this fuckwit right on the cover of their propaganda magazine, in case anyone missed it.

The hilarious thing is watching our "pro gun democrats" pretend nobody can tell (when they aren't busily bashing Democrats and peddling right wing bilge).

[goju]

33. No, its not just horseshit. Its the same horseshit.

Same scare tactics, same dis-information, same shit.

But your response doesnt exactly address the issue.

AWB was the subject. I think there are quite a few democrats that support the second ammendment, as it was written, not re-interpreted. I dont think its accurate to characterize anyone who supports the individuals' rights spelled out in the constitution as a reich wing fuckwit. The consitution clearly defines individual rights; re-interpreting that to mean anything more, or less, is dishonest even if it comes from a politician!

[MrBenchley]

35. No, it's the same horseshit from the same right wingers.s....

And my response was right on the money.

"I dont think its accurate to characterize anyone who supports the individuals' rights spelled out in the constitution as a reich wing fuckwit. "
I think it's an entirely appropriate term for someone who wants to lie about what the courts have said, like AshKKKroft and the NRA do...and the courts have said over and over again that the Second Amendment grants a collective right to the states to have a well regulated militia.

[goju]

37. The courts also gave bush the white house

[MrBenchley]

40. Well that IS hilarious...

Tell us, please, which judges are likely to rule for this bogus right wing "gun rights" crap....honest judges or corrupt right wing pieces of shit like Scalia?

[goju]

44. Well, perhaps you will be comfortable with

Those same judges inferring collective rights on other constitutional issues such as speech, or religion. If its good enough for the 2nd, why not the 1st?

Are you naive enough to believe that judicial re-interpretation is a one-way street? That it wont backfire?

You might want to consider the bigger picture on this.

[MrBenchley]

52. Perhaps flying monkeys will come out Larry Pratt's butt.....

"You might want to consider the bigger picture"
You mean like who else is peddling this gun rights crap? Like who is funding the far right?

[goju]

55. Well

Not sure where the flying monkey routine came from, but its very clever.

It should be noted that those who are peddling the "gun rights crap" you mention include senators Kerry and Edwards.

From his site....

"John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and both he and John Edwards support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to own guns."

Notice that he doesnt re-interpret the constitution here, despite your yearnings. Law-abiding Americans, not militias, have the right to own guns. Do you agree with Kerry's position on the 2nd?

Who cares who is funding the far right? That has nothing to do with gun rights unless you are some tim mcveigh wanna be.

[MrBenchley]

56. That's too too funny....

And of course, that's going to keep the "gun rights" shitheels from lying their asses off about John Kerry and John Edwards....

"Notice that he doesnt re-interpret the constitution here"
Notice that he doesn't interpret it at all....Hell, I support the Second Amendment collective right to own guns...which is what the Second Amendment covers, as the courts have said again and again and again. The only people trying to "re-interpret" anything are right wing fuckwits like John AshKKKroft.

And if you don't care who funds the far right, then I guess you'll support the corrupt and extremist gun lobby no matter what they're up to. Nice playmates you got.

[goju]

57. Its weird

that you are more obsessed with right wing lunies than the constitution. At least you seem to have a better understanding of them than you do the constitution.

If you care what far right militants have to say about gun rights, you are barking up the wrong tree. I know you will never accept the fact that democrats are gun owners too, but its a fact. Get used to it.

The 2nd doesnt mention collective at all. The militia crap was manufactured in the courts, much like the 2000 election. But if you want to put your entire faith, and your argument, in the courts hands, go right ahead. Im sure Scalia would thank you for such blind support.

You care more about the far right than anyone Ive ever seen. That is all you ever mention in your arguments. Nice hobby you got.

[MrBenchley]

58. Not so weird....

I hear right wing loonies lie about current events and the Constitution every day.

"I know you will never accept the fact that democrats are gun owners too"
Yeah, it shows...just look at all the pro-Democrat statements on gun owner forums all over the web...oh wait, there aren't any. Those forums are rife with dittohead horseshit. In fact, all we get over here are excuses as to why our "pro gun democrats" can't say word one over there. But we sure do get plenty of right wing horseshit and attacks on Democrats HERE from our "pro gun democrats."

Meanwhile, it sure is hilarious hearing you try to pretend that a Nazi piece of shit like Scalia is pro-gun control.

"Nice hobby you got."
I like it. And I especially enjoy watching "pro gun democrats" try to pretend they got no clue as to who else is flogging this "gun rights" crap.

[library_max]

64. How about if it comes from every single US court case that has considered

the Second Amendment? Seems to me it's the courts' job to interpret the law. And every single standing decision has been in favor of a gun control measure and against the gun owner involved in the case.

[FeebMaster]

17. If you had read the ban, you'd know it doesn't keep them

off the market.

[MrBenchley]

20. Sez you, feeb....

But I'll stick with the proposal now in Congress....

[FeebMaster]

21. Says the law, actually.

Ahh the proposal in Congress that still doesn't consider the SKS an assault weapon. Hahah.

[MrBenchley]

22. Sure it does, feeb.....

[FeebMaster]

23. You just keep telling yourself that.

I'm sure it will make you feel better.

[MrBenchley]

24. Yeah, feeb, everybody decent is lying about the AWB

but fuckwits like David Duke are telling the truth....

And of course nobody can go to Thomas and look up the bills for themselves...

[FeebMaster]

25. David Duke has nothing to do with it.

Yes people can go to Thomas and read the bill and they'll see that under the expanded ban the SKS isn't considered an assault weapon unless it has a detachable magazine. Now, why don't you tell me what percentage of SKSs have detachable magazines. Hahah.

[MrBenchley]

26. Sure he does, feeb...

You just want to pretend otherwise....

[FeebMaster]

29. I thought we were talking about how the AWB

doesn't keep anything off the market and how even the expanded AWBs you keep trying to peddle don't even consider it an assault weapon unless it has a detachable magazine which most don't. What does David Duke have to do with that?

[MrBenchley]

31. And who else is peddling that line of crap, feeb?

[FeebMaster]

32. What line of crap? (nt)

[library_max]

59. Local controls don't work.

There are no border checks, no customs searches, between municipalities. So what's legal anywhere quickly becomes available everywhere.

[Romulus]

61. kind of like hard drugs, huh? (eom)

[library_max]

63. Not sure what your point was.

Maybe it has something to do with how, unlike hard drugs, millions of dollars worth of guns cannot be smuggled in a briefcase or a stomach bag or whipped up in a garbage can.

But unlike hard drugs, a dozen or so guns that are legal in (say) Virginia can be bought cheap and loaded into the trunk of a car and driven into (say) DC.

[skippythwndrdog]

42. Tsk, tsk, tsk

Your post involves about 1,100 chiefs and sheriffs. Both are political beings, one appointed, the other elected. Excepting for very small counties and departments, both are far removed from day to day beat work.

I suggest that you repair your header to read Chiefs and Sheriffs instead of officers. It's misleading.

[MrBenchley]

45. Tough titty, skippy....

[skippythwndrdog]

46. Whoa! I'm humbled by your witty reparte'

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

48. Therefore, I withdraw from this portion of the thread in order to avoid

wasting my wit.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

60. It's not his header, skippy.

It's the headline from the original article. Around DU, it's generally considered fair play to use the original article heading when you're quoting an article. On some fora, it's required.

Anyhoo, we just had a thread the other day detailing police officers' unions representing thousands of regular cops joining the chiefs in supporting the ban.

And besides, we have actual cops on JPS. Any cops want to weigh in on the issue of whether or not police chiefs and sheriffs are mere politicos who don't concern themselves with the safety of their officers?

[TX-RAT]

62. one appointed, the other elected.

Some Police Chiefs are elected, Skippy.
By the way, did you ever find the names of the 3 Police Chiefs that never wore a badge.

[Romulus]

53. no explanation

as to why one set of firearms is being targeted for banning because of how they function,
while another set of firearms
that are identical in function to the banned set
are NOT being targeted

Still waiting . . .:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

54. None needed....

[EconGeek]

65. Because you're counting on ignorance...

That's what's so absurd about this.

There is nothing about "AW"s that seperates them from non-AW rifles, except for ergonomic and sefety features.

Oh, and bayonetts. We have too many drive by bayonettings, right? That's the real issue, isn't it.

:rollseyes:

[MrBenchley]

66. If it wasn't for ignorance there'd be no RKBA movement at all....

"There is nothing about "AW"s that seperates them from non-AW rifles"
Then you really don't need one, do you?

[EconGeek]

68. Nice Dodge... I guess you concede the point.

Why do you think that people shouldn't have them?

Be specific-- show how they are more harmful than similar rifles.

What is the threat posed by a flash hider? By a threaded barrel? By a pistol grip? By a bayonett?

You really think that bayonettings are a serious criminal problem?

The anti-AWB position is absurd on the face of it, and has only gotten so far because most people are ignorant, and those who support it are dishonest-- claiming that AWs are full auto.

[MrBenchley]

69. No dodge at all...

People shouldn't have them becqause they're a fucking public menace....

"The anti-AWB position is absurd on the face of it"
Gee, I couldn't have said THAT better myself. And the gun lobby itself already showed what a pantload these silly arguments are.

"most people are ignorant, and those who support it are dishonest"
And nobody knows the truth but a blessed few...like David Duke, Larry Pratt, Ted Nugent, Grover Norquist.....