September 17, 2004

Moveon's Assault Weapon Lie

Moveon has a new ad that shows an AK47, and the ad claims it can shoot up to 300 rounds a minute, and thanks to President Bush, terrorists and anyone else can now get their hands on the gun. Problem with that is- it's a lie, and they surely know it. The AK47, and ALL fully automatic weapons are outlaws...the AK47 has been banned since 1934 (it was created in '47 but banned under the '34 law).

Lies from moveon? Shocking!

Posted by Josh at September 17, 2004 01:42 AM | TrackBack
Comments

[the AK47 has been banned since 1934]

-Thats funny considering the AK-47 wasn't developed until the late 60's....

Posted by: HOOD at September 17, 2004 07:47 AM

Allow me to be more clear on that point. The AK-47 as we know it today wasn't developed until the late 60's

The original AK-47 was not an automatic rifle. It was a semi, and wasn't developed until 1949.

Posted by: HOOD at September 17, 2004 07:58 AM

it was created in '47 i believe...the law from 1934 covered the gun.

Posted by: Josh Bozeman at September 17, 2004 12:06 PM

I think you're talking about the firearms act, in which case it didn't ban automatic weapons, but rather regulate their distribution (wasn't that part of the Rosevelt plan to stop gangsters?)

Posted by: HOOD at September 17, 2004 01:03 PM

"thanks to President Bush, terrorists and anyone else can now get their hands on the gun. Problem with that is- it's a lie, and they surely know it. The AK47, and ALL fully automatic weapons are outlaws"

- It's not really a lie. The AK-47 was explicitly listed as one of the 19 named assault-style firearms banned under the Assault Weapons Ban. The problem is it was still availiable under a modified version to conform to the law.

LINKS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
http://www.vpc.org/ak47.htm

EXCERPTS:

"The 1994 ban covered 19 different types of military assault weapons, including AK-47, Kalashnikov and Uzi rifles, as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds."

"The expiration Monday of a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons means firearms like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s can now be legally bought"

"The AK-47 was one of the assault weapons banned by Congress by name in 1994. However, the AK-47 is still available in both pre- and post-ban configurations."

- Why don't you research the subject before you accuse people of lying? Are you tired of us embarassing you like this?


Posted by: lowdown at September 17, 2004 08:02 PM

heres an idea...when YOU research, get your info. from a reliable source, not a site that clearly has an agenda to demonize the congress and president for not reinstating a useless "ban."

a law was passed in 1986 that banned selling ANY fully automatic weapons made after the law went into affect to ANY civilians. the 1934 national firearms act made it illegal to have a fully auto weapon unless you show you have necessity to have such a weapon, go thru 2 background checks by the FBI, go thru the ATF, get licensed by the federal govt, pay up to a thousand dollar tax when you take possession and when/if you transfer the weapon to another person...you also have to go thru the US treasury to get permission for ownership, file 2 sets of fingerprints, register with local, state, and federal authorities, and register the weapon in the national firearms registry. i could go on with further requirements...

but, youre right, thanks to president bush (who passes no laws as president, and despite the fact that neither party in the house supported the bill anymore) is the evil man moveon says he is, and you will, indeed, be able to go out and buy any of these guns. wrong. its just not true, it is a lie...but thanks for trying to "embarass" me, and i wish you better luck next time.

Posted by: Josh Bozeman at September 17, 2004 09:50 PM

"get your info. from a reliable source, not a site that clearly has an agenda to demonize the congress and president for not reinstating a useless "ban."

- Is MSNBC unreliable? The BBC? I admit they're no "FOX NEWS" (sarcasm), but they seem pretty alright to me. I assume you're talking about vpc.com.. you are aware that I didn't use them for any evidence that wasn't already supported by other sites I listed, right? So why waste my time questioning a source for evidence that was already cross referenced?

"a law was passed in 1986 that banned selling ANY fully automatic weapons made after the law went into affect to ANY civilians"

- Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated when it comes to civilians, but not illegal.

- The AK-47 (and many other assault weapons) is avaliable as a semi automatic. So much for that point.

"file 2 sets of fingerprints, register with local, state, and federal authorities, and register the weapon in the national firearms registry. i could go on with further requirements..."

- This is all true. Since the AK-47 is also availiable as a semi-automatic, it is completely irrelevant.

"but, youre right, thanks to president bush (who passes no laws as president, and despite the fact that neither party in the house supported the bill anymore) is the evil man moveon says he is, and you will, indeed, be able to go out and buy any of these guns. wrong. its just not true, it is a lie"

- It is partially Bush's responsibility since he could actively support the ban and encourage members of his party to do so (just as he could actively campaign against the ban). He's just keeping his mouth shut so he doesn't lose the approval of the NRA (no Republican president has ever won an election without their approval). He should take responsibility for the things that happen on his watch, he is the President after all.

"but thanks for trying to "embarass" me, and i wish you better luck next time"

- I'm not trying to embarass you. I'm saying you embarass yourself when you get so many facts wrong.

Posted by: lowdown at September 18, 2004 03:08 PM

You're both right in a way. Josh, a lot of your facts were rather "out there", But you were right when you said Bush didn't get the bill in front of him to sign in the first place. Kerry could be as much to blame as Bush can. Kerry didn't mention it once until after the ban expired. Why didn't he advocate for it's renewal prior to the end date?

And Lowdown, as said above, technically, it's not really Bush's fault. But it's true though, without the NRA lobby Bush would be in a bit of a mess....

Posted by: HOODinc at September 19, 2004 04:16 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?