Today the editorial board (which means the editor) of USA Today wrote a column stating that we should resurrrect the Feinstein Assault Weapon ban.
One idea they gave of course isn't a ban on assault weapons. "And to outlaw the high-capacity magazines, with more than 10 rounds, that help make them so deadly." I can challenge this since they are arguing that a new ban would have prevented the Orlando shooting. Why do I say it wouldn't, because the shooter already had background checks and licenses that match a law enforcement officer. And no gun controlist is calling for Police to be bared from access to high capacity magazines. So this shooter wouldn't have been prevented.
As to the gun ban the "Editorial Board" said "The 1994 law might have been even more successful had it been crafted more strictly. But gun makers are adept at finding legal loopholes, and this was no exception. They tweaked their products and sold the revised version legally." Actually, the government assisted in this and the evidence has already been sent to europe (via the internet). You see the Federal government had a reason for getting the AR-15 off the ban sheet, as well as the M-1A. Just as California first lobbied Bushmaster to make a fixed magazine version of the AR-15, to be followed by Jerry Brown identifying guns equiped with a Bulllet Button magazine release are not assault weapons. He has rejected two laws sent him as Governor to make the bullet button illegal.
In short the editorial board is claiming that after almost 20 years they are unaware of why the Clinton Administration changed the CMP gun requirements to "MANDATE" the use of the AR-15 and all the guns used in the higher level CMP events have to be made by manufacturers on the Army list of approved gun makers to manufacture AR-15 components during a war. After 20 years the "editorial Board" can no longer claim culpable deniability.
One idea they gave of course isn't a ban on assault weapons. "And to outlaw the high-capacity magazines, with more than 10 rounds, that help make them so deadly." I can challenge this since they are arguing that a new ban would have prevented the Orlando shooting. Why do I say it wouldn't, because the shooter already had background checks and licenses that match a law enforcement officer. And no gun controlist is calling for Police to be bared from access to high capacity magazines. So this shooter wouldn't have been prevented.
As to the gun ban the "Editorial Board" said "The 1994 law might have been even more successful had it been crafted more strictly. But gun makers are adept at finding legal loopholes, and this was no exception. They tweaked their products and sold the revised version legally." Actually, the government assisted in this and the evidence has already been sent to europe (via the internet). You see the Federal government had a reason for getting the AR-15 off the ban sheet, as well as the M-1A. Just as California first lobbied Bushmaster to make a fixed magazine version of the AR-15, to be followed by Jerry Brown identifying guns equiped with a Bulllet Button magazine release are not assault weapons. He has rejected two laws sent him as Governor to make the bullet button illegal.
In short the editorial board is claiming that after almost 20 years they are unaware of why the Clinton Administration changed the CMP gun requirements to "MANDATE" the use of the AR-15 and all the guns used in the higher level CMP events have to be made by manufacturers on the Army list of approved gun makers to manufacture AR-15 components during a war. After 20 years the "editorial Board" can no longer claim culpable deniability.
RSS Feed
