QandO
Questions and Observations| « Kerry is so 9/10 | Main | Killian's Secretary Claims Doc's are frauds but contents are real » |
|
September 14, 2004 MoveOn's red herring Yup, the boyz and girlz at MoveOn have just put out a stinkin' fish as far as ads go. Its an ad in which absolutely everything is wrong. FactCheck.org, which is usually a bit more restrained in its comments, minces no words when it comes to the new MoveOn ad about assault weapons: This latest ad from Moveon PAC is about as misleading as it can be. Through words, graphics and sound effects, it invites viewers to think that the expiration of the ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons will allow people legally to buy fully automatic machine guns that can fire "up to 300 rounds per minute." That's false. Well there's a surprise. In fact, the only thing "assault'" about the weapons in question is the name. They are semi-automatic rifles, not automatic rifles like the military assault rifles, and they're no different, in effect than hundreds of other semi-automatic rifles sold daily except they happen to look like military assault weapons. That's right, their biggest "crime", if you will, is they look like something they're not. As FactCheck.org points out: It has been illegal to buy a machine gun without federal clearance since 1934, and remains so. In other words, in terms of automatic weapons and automatic assault weapons, nothing has changed. Of course in the politically charged atmosphere of a national election, its not unusual to see some exaggeration come to the fore, like MoveOn's claim about President Bush: But on Sept. 13th, George Bush will let the assault weapon ban expire. George Bush says he’s making America safer. Who does he think he’s kidding? Except George Bush didn't let the assault weapon ban expire, Congress did. The ad also claims that Bush "will let the assault weapon ban expire," which is misleading. In fact, Bush spoke in support of the ban during his campaign four years ago and his spokesman said as recently as May of last year that he still supported it. It was Congress that failed to consider extending the ban and didn't present Bush with a bill to sign. If there's any claim to be made that has some legitimacy, it would be that Bush didn't exert the leadership necessary to have it renewed. Maybe, maybe not. I've not seen that discussed anywhere yet. But in terms of power, he had no power to keep the law from expiring. Only Congress had that power. The assault gun ban was about attributes which were non-leathal. Grips, magazines, etc. It wasn't about the important attributes of a real assault weapon ... automatic fire. Automatics, as pointed out, have been illegal since the '30s. This was about how a semi-automatic rifle looked. The now expired Assault Gun Ban was a typical symbolism over substance law. It did nothing to prevent the spread of real assault rifles to terrorists or criminals and it certainly didn't keep them from using them over the years the law was in effect. |