May 05, 1994, WILLIAM J. EATON | TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.
Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban....
- Require background checks for all gun sales
- Strengthen the background check system for gun sales
- Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons
- Limit ammunition magazines on 10 rounds
- Finish the job of getting armor piercing bullets off the streets
- Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime
- End the freeze on gun violence research
- Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans and neutering school climates
- Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people
That is fine, but, it isn't enough. What exactly is a new, stronger ban? We need the Assault Weapons Ban including modifications made to semi-automatic weapons. Hollow tip bullets are also inappropriate for protecting a home.
What makes anyone believe the threat to our society is not real enough to move into a ban with the death count moving to 1200 Americans since the Sandy Hook School Massacre? (click here) Something about that idea unjustified?
Looking to what was successful in the past is a beginning, but, there are many aspects of the gun industry which is inappropriate for personal protection. The idea any legislator can't understand what is important rather than populous is offensive. They need to do their jobs.
Passing a bill to simply pass a bill is not appropriate. It needs to be effective. Research over time can help remove constraints in the market place, but, at this point it is inappropriate to postpone effectiveness. The only research any legislator needs to understand today, is the actual body count occurring; it is research enough. I am sorry this is so difficult politically, but, there are lives on the line. It isn't the legislators fault there are high numbers of death everyday, it is however, their responsibility now.
When the Congress and President asked Americans to 'Fly Safe' after the attacks of September 11, 2001 by limiting all kinds of objects in their carry on luggage, it was never an issue. Inconvenient? Sure. An assault on privacy and rights? Absolutely, but, it was carried out anyway. Over time those restrictions were lifted when proven not to be a threat. What is so different about this?
