Fuck CNN (AWB article)
 

Blatant falsehoods about what the ban covered, trying to get people afraid of what's happening, I'm starting to see why people accuse them of being "liberal media." I haven't seen evidence past this one issue, so I won't judge yet, but the talking heads who were covering this last week pissed me off.

Yes. Partisanship aside, the Fourth Estate today is another problem in itself in terms of "educating and informing" us.
The situation as we have it does not provide anything resembling unbiased or objective info. This was not the way it was intended when the idea of "a free press" was promoted by the Founding Fathers. It's "bad news" all around.

What are you referring to in the article that is blatantly false?

hmm...

massacres at a McDonald's and an elementary school don't move her to action, but one at a high-powered law firm does. funny when it seems to "hit home" for her...

well done Senator.

Just because I happened to find this before MSD replied, allow me to pick this article apart.

Wrong, these weapons were not banned. These weapons were and are still controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The semi-automatic versions/knockoffs of these guns did fall under the ban, but only those manufactured after 9/13/94. Modifying the firearms many times still made it legal to sell even while the ban was in place. Cosmetic things were affected but not functionality.

Many liberal police chiefs bought into this idea, now they are saying crime will go up because in a year, when it doesn't, they will look stupid. If a person is going to commit a crime, they aren't going to go, "Well damn, the gun I was going to use is on the AWB list...guess I can't commit that crime now".

Wrong again. The sale of these items was not banned, the continued production of these items was banned. You could still buy and sell items made before 9/13/94 that were grandfathered in. Furthermore, there was no shortage of many of these items, including 30 round magazines for the AR-15. Definition time. A magazine is what you put in the gun that has bullets in it. A clip is a strip of metal that holds bullets. You load magazines from clips.

Proof positive that it was based on cosmetic features rather than functionality. They changed the way it looked and it was legal now, no function change.

Lets see, you make a law that will force me out of business if I don't change the way I do things. What the hell did you expect!!

I'm sorry, I haven't seen one study that says this has worked. If anyone has this information, please direct it my way so I can take a look at it.

My email to CNN regarding this article:

There is no liberal media, nothing to see here, these arn't the liberals you are looking for, move along.

hrdwareguy, I'd like to see the "fuck you" letter you get back from CNN. You covered all of my points.

muahahahahahahaha.......I just went back tot he CNN site and pulled that article back up. They have removed AK-47 and UZI from the second paragraph.

Yes, and the entire media consists of cnn. Invest in the tinfoil industry much?

So you are implying that CNN is liberal biased? :D

Sidebar, kinda scary for me.

I was supposed to be at that McDonald's in 1984 at roughly the same time as the shooting.

We used to have a house in Ensenada and on the way down we would stop at that McDonald's (I was 12) for lunch. That morning, however, our car broke down and delayed our trip down south by one day.

/sorry for the interruption, this post just reminded me of that event

Paraphrase: In 1984, 21 hungry customers were shot dead in a McDonalds. In 1989, 5 innocent civilians were brutally murdered at an elementary school. In 1993 8 lawyers get shot dead and action had to be taken!

In Feinstein's defense, I'm pretty sure she wasn't a senator untill '93. But yeah, she's an idiot, and I won't be voting for her anymore.

hrdwareguy: most of your complaints about the article are simple quibbles over the word "ban" and what that entails. If the Assault Weapon ban was so ineffectual then why did you have a problem with it? The gun dealer interviewed on NPR today said that he sold more "assault weapons" and accessories in the two weeks before the ban took effect than in the previous ten years. Also his backstock of pre-1994-manufactured instantly increased in price two to three times what they were previously. I think you could argue that the AWB actually increased the business of weapons dealers by making people more aware of and spiking the price of "assault weapons." Before this turns into another outlet for bashing leftist politicians that the ban passed with Bi-partisan support and that GWBush supported it with words. His actions don't match his words however, he didn't ask congress to extend the ban. I guess W's fabled conviction doesn't extend to positions that might anger his base during an election year.

If we are going to be talking about a legal document, then yes I think it very important to determine what the words in the document mean. Most of the american people only know about guns what the see on TV and in the movies. Therefore I have a problem with news media writing stories that portray guns as all fully automatic and every Tom, Dick, and Harry being able to get them.

What is the first thing most people think of when they hear AK-47 and Uzi? They generally think of some terrorist with a fully automatic weapon. Now talk about AK-47's and Uzi's in conjunction with the AWB and most uneducated on the subject people think jull autos will become legal and they will "flood the streets". Guess what...full auto AK-47's have been legal for longer than the ban has been in place. The ban did nothing with fully automatic stuff, only semi-automatic stuff. It did not make these guns illegal, it simply prevented the semi-automatic versions from being manufactured. I have a problem with the media using words against the uneducated of a subject to make them fear something. I guess it is true, we only fear what we don't know. I spent a good portion of the day yesterday scouring news sites and emailing them correcting articles they had written about the AWB so don't think I'm just picking on CNN.

I have a problem with the AWB for several reasons. First, it made the anti-gun crowd look good because they did something - ineffectual as it was. Second, it made prices skyrocket for no good reason other than fear. Third, it did prohibit the manufactur of certain things(hi cap mags), therefore driving the price of these items up beyond control. Yeah yeah, supply and demand controls the price but gotta love fear helping it out. I believe part of the reason it passed with bi-partisan support is because it was innefectual and wht the repubs passing it, it took an issue away from the dems.

I do not think it was up to GWB to ask congress to pass legislation. They new it would expire just as well as he did and they (congress) did nothing about it. Mainly because they didn't have the votes to pass it. The reason they didn't have the votes is because they didn't want it to pass and get the gun crowd all pissed and show up in force and vote republican in November.

The media just wants to play this to people's fears. Anyone who REALLY wants an AK or an Uzi can get one, just like anyone who REALLY wants drugs can find somewhere to buy them. And honestly, does anyone actually believe that a little government weapons ban will keep assault weapons out of terrorists' hands? There are lots of things that terrorists and criminals aren't supposed to be able to get, but they get them! This is just more material for the media to use to make Bush look bad before election time.

Fuck the Daily Show while you're at it. The way Jon Stewart reported on the AWB sunset was even more hysterically fearful than the CNN article. Even though I did laugh.