Hues and cries from the liberal media\nThe Ban on assault weapons will not be renewed. Despite hues and cries in the press from liberals, we conservatives control Congress and the presidency.\nThere are as many good arguments against renewal as there are for renewal. The fact that your editorial board voted 11-0 ("Renew assault weapons ban" July 22) to approve your article -- without even one (statistically-expected) dissent indicates that your publication is biased. You know, there is a reason Bush and the Republicans are in power.\nGeorge Karalis\nSan Francisco
And the ban played on into the night\nLike so many of the editorials and news stories on the expiration of the 1994 assault weapons ban, yours ("Renew assault weapons ban" July 22) shows that you do not really understand the issue and have not taken the time to get the facts.\nFirst of all, importation and new manufacture of foreign-made, military-style guns -- like the AK-47 and UZI -- were banned by the first President Bush in 1989. The expiration of the 1994 ban will not change this.\nUnder the 1994 ban, guns can still be made that only had two of the five features that, by Congress's definition, defined an assault weapon. These are a removable magazine, a distinctive pistol grip, a threaded muzzle/flash suppressor, a bayonet lug and a collapsing stock. So, post-ban guns, which are functionally identical to pre-ban ones, continue to be made. Check out www.armalite.com or www.bushmaster.com, for example, to see modern, legal examples.\nSo, the 1994 ban was about cosmetics, not function. Also, under the ban, high-capacity magazines made before the ban can still be imported and sold.\nAs far as your comment about the expiration of the crime causing an increase in crime, even Dianne Feinstein (the author of the bill) acknowledged that guns such as these were only used in 1-2 percent of crimes and that the ban was symbolic. This opinion is shared by Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center who issued the following statement: "If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another ... So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass."\nThe ban has not kept crime from getting worse. As you acknowledged, there are copies of these guns still out there. In fact, many new guns (cosmetically altered to get around the ban) have been made and sold since the ban. However, despite this, crime, which was already decreasing before the ban, has continued to fall. \nIf there was, as you say, strong public support for the ban, then why hasn't it been passed? While the National Rifle Association is a strong lobby, even it could not stand against the will of the American people. President Clinton said that passing the ban costs the Democrats 20 Congressional seats and control of the House in the next national election. Also, in a mostly symbolic vote, the House voted later to repeal the ban.\nThe expiration of the ban will not have a significant impact on crime since, except for cosmetic changes, the same guns that are being made and sold now will be made and sold after it. Bill Diaz (VPC) understands this and he would like to ban them all.\nMichael Sorgenfrei\nSugar Land, Texas
It's just like having a second gas tank\nThe assault weapons ban prohibits firearms from having more than two of the following five features: adjustable stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor or threaded barrel, grenade launcher mount and magazines of greater than 10 rounds.\nFor those of your readers not familiar with firearms, allow me to use a car analogy for some of the prohibited features. An adjustable stock is useful to make the firearm more comfortable for shooters of various sizes, just like adjustable seats in a car do.\nThe magazine capacity ban is very similar to adding a second gas tank so you can drive further between fill-ups. The ominous sounding bayonet mount is useful for mounting flashlights and tripods, just like a roof rack is useful for carrying bikes, skis, etc. The presence of these features do not make create machine guns.\nIn 2002, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz warned that our disregard of the Second Amendment via gun control laws like the assault weapons ban is "courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." The Second Amendment is clear: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." \nIt's in the Constitution, look for it.\nMike Silver\nAlpharetta, Ga.
'How about the second Amendment?'\nI find it amusing how modern liberals have become so narrow minded. In your July 22 staff editorial ("Renew assault weapons ban") which was voted on 11-0 (which, by the way, I find hard to believe), you said you have yet to hear a compelling argument against the unfortunately named assault weapons ban. \nHow about the second amendment? \nYou also claim you would like to hear how "life would be better if anyone could purchase an assault weapon at anytime." I didn't know this was the essential question Congress asked itself before making laws. And, as far as I know, the Brady Bill still prevents people from getting guns "anytime" and felons are still not allowed to carry weapons. But I digress. I don't see how life is better with smoking, alcohol and non-reproductive sex. And I should point out, according to a recent report by the Center for Disease Control, smoking, alcohol and casual sex were the actual causes of death for 540,000 United States citizens in 2000, while firearms accounted for 29,000. \nSo you'll probably want to lobby Congress to ban those too, just to be safe. \nBy the way, I just took a vote of my friends, and we voted 13-0 that you shouldn't be allowed to write baseless, unsubstantiated opinions. Good thing there are better safeguards to amending the U.S. Constitution than know-nothing college kids voting, or you'd be out of a job.\nIan Burns\nIU alumnus
Wisdom of the sunset provision\nTell me, what exactly do you mean by the line: "The assault weapons ban is a gravely different matter than bans against traditional hunting rifles and firearms for protection. Comparing the two categories is unfair and misleading."\nWhat's unfair and misleading are the lies that come from the liberal media. Ain't no difference between what's legal right now and what will be legal (again) on Sept. 14. Specifically, what do you have the biggest problem with? Pistol grips? Flash reducers? Bayonet mounts? Detachable magazines? Or is it just the fact that it goes "bang"?\nOooooh, scary.\nWhat a ridiculous law to begin with. I'm happy to see it go, and we'll just have to wait and see if the doomsday predictions by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer and your editorial board will come to pass. Of course, things will not change a bit, and the wisdom of the sunset provision will be validated. It's just a shame it took 10 years.\nWarner J. Delaune, Jr.\nBaton Rouge, La.
