Another low blow from Kerry
Dick Cheney has clarified his remarks, which caused so much angst. I think anyone reading his comments in their full context would likely accept his clarification as accurate.
Perhaps John Kerry would like to take his cue and clarify this, from his website (emphasis mine):
Four years ago, George Bush said he'd stand with and protect America's police officers by extending the assault weapons ban -- which keeps the most dangerous assault weapons off our streets. The same weapons that America's police officers want off our streets, not just to fight ordinary crime but to take on terrorists. In fact, an al Qaeda training manual recovered in Afghanistan included a chapter urging terrorists to get assault weapons in the United States. Why is George Bush making the job of the terrorists easier and making the job for America's police officers harder?
Yep, Susan Estrich was right. Those Democrats are just too warm and fuzzy to campaign effectively.
Comments
What is wrong with Kerry's statement? Nearly every police chief I know is for the assault weapon ban. Making them legal would not just allow them to fall into the hands of a Colin Ferguson, it also could allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists.
Guns that are legal on the open market become that much easier to obtain on the black market (circumventing any background checks through a go-between.)
What is wrong with Kerry's statement here? Are you for the legalization of semi-automatic weapons? For what purpose does the average person need to load and reload clips of rounds that can be shot off in seconds? For defense of their home? For hunting?
(I can sure see how a terrorist might use one, though.)
Posted by: PE | September 11, 2004 06:23 PM
What is wrong with Kerry's statement? Nearly every police chief I know is for the assault weapon ban. Making them legal would not just allow them to fall into the hands of a Colin Ferguson, it also could allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists.
Guns that are legal on the open market become that much easier to obtain on the black market (circumventing any background checks through a go-between.)
What is wrong with Kerry's statement here? Are you for the legalization of semi-automatic weapons? For what purpose does the average person need to load and reload clips of rounds that can be shot off in seconds? For defense of their home? For hunting?
(I can sure see how a terrorist might use one, though.)
Posted by: PE | September 11, 2004 06:25 PM
What is wrong with Kerry's statement? Nearly every police chief I know is for the assault weapon ban. Making them legal would not just allow them to fall into the hands of a Colin Ferguson, it also could allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists.
Guns that are legal on the open market become that much easier to obtain on the black market (circumventing any background checks through a go-between.)
What is wrong with Kerry's statement here? Are you for the legalization of semi-automatic weapons? For what purpose does the average person need to load and reload clips of rounds that can be shot off in seconds? For defense of their home? For hunting?
(I can sure see how a terrorist might use one, though.)
Posted by: PE | September 11, 2004 06:25 PM
Imagine how many times I could post that thought if I had an assault weapon!
Posted by: PE | September 11, 2004 08:38 PM
Cute.
But I'm sure you know that
A) "Assault rifles," defined by this law, are not rapid-fire machine guns. They are semi-automatics, and that
B) The features that define an "assault weapon" under this law are largely cosmetic, thus rendering the law useless for keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Can you imagine: "Damn, Kalid! They don't have one with the folding stock, or the pistol grips I like! I am no longer interested in jihad!"
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | September 11, 2004 11:18 PM
First, just because you start a debate with "you know.." doesn't make what you say true.
I mean, I could say.. "I'm sure you know that elephants can fly." And then I could argue quite logically that a mere moat would not contain their escape from the zoo.
If you begin with your contention, then your logic follows. However, your contention that the differences are merely cosmetic is debated by the police chiefs of this nation.
Of course, we could publicly debate/discuss the facts behind this contenion, but it looks like we will not have that debate.
Why?
Because the Republicans control the Congressional and Executive branches.
Posted by: PE | September 12, 2004 10:09 AM