the federal assault-weapons ban
Did anyone catch the interview on NPR today during Lehrer, with Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California)? I listed to it, then I
read the transcript and I'm terribly confused. Or incredulous. I think I'm more incredulous than confused. Basically, it seemed to me that Craig was saying that they weren't even going to put it to a vote "just because we don't want to". Hell, even Bush says he'd sign the bill to renew the ban. Two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans support the ban. It seems pretty straightforward: assault-weapons bad, ban good. Ban is expiring, let's renew the ban.
Craig just sounded like a complete idiot. Check this out:
MARGARET WARNER: But do you think there will be a very vigorous sale of these?
SEN. LARRY CRAIG: Any time you lift a ban, if you had banned Lincoln automobiles for five years and you lifted the ban, there would be a pent-up demand in the marketplace for anything. Americans own firearms. More Americans today and more women than ever own a firearm for self-protection, and yet crime by the use of a firearm has dramatically dropped and is continuing to drop because the law enforcement community goes after those who in illegal fashion use a firearm.
So, that would be a "yes"...if you lift a ban, people who had previously not purchased assault weapons would now go purchase assault weapons,
because it would be legal...and that's a good thing? Huh? Also, what the heck does "more women than ever own a firearm for self-protection" have to do with anything? Do they? That's nice. Nice, legal firearms, 2nd Amendment, that's wonderful. What exactly does that have to do with fully automatic assault weapons? The logic is...what now? Or...what ever was it?
Anyway, I'm either confused or incredulous, I don't know. Seems obvious: assault weapons bad, ban good. I'm not even going to get into the whole "and you want to legalize the arms for the terror cells in the US" thing. Jeebus.
