WASHINGTON, April 19, 2009
Heated Debate Over Assault Weapons
FTN: NRA Head Says Ban Would Extend To All Guns; Pa. Gov. Says Better Enforcement Of Existing Laws Not Enough
-
On December 23, 2008 in East El Paso, ICE agents arrested two men — one Mexican, one a U.S. citizen — on charges of illegally smuggling weapons into Mexico from the U.S. Among the items seized: 11 AK-47 7.62mm X 39mm assault rifles, and one upper receiver for an AR-15 assault rifle, as well as 5,664 rounds of ammunition (including armor-piercing bullets). (U.S. ICE)
-
Play CBS Video Video Debate Over 'Assault Weapons' Harry Smith spoke with Pa. Gov. Ed Rendell and the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre who debated American gun control laws.
-
Video Face The Nation, 4.19.09 Harry Smith spoke with White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod about President Obama's meeting with Latin American leaders and Gov. Ed Rendell and the NRA debate "assault weapons."
-
Interactive Guns In America State-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.
Yet the two almost - almost - came to a shared agreement on gun violence.
Rendell said that he "absolutely" agrees that the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 should be reinstated.
Rendell pointed to last week's shooting in Pittsburgh in which three police officers responding to a domestic disturbance were killed by a man armed with an assault weapon - a weapon apparently purchased legally. He said more officers may have been killed if the gunman's weapon had not jammed.
Rendell said he agrees with the president's decision to hold off on the issue while focusing on the economy - "This is not the time to bring this issue up" - but he assured host Harry Smith that virtually every police organization supports banning assault weapons.
"You know, we all pay homage to beliefs," Rendell said. "May 15th is the day to remember the policemen who have died in the line of duty. We all give homage to the police, and yet we don't listen to them on this basic issue.
"Since the assault ban has been lifted, Harry, 40 American police officers have either been killed or seriously wounded with assault weapons."
The NRA's LaPierre, however, said that the assault weapons ban is "a totally phony issue. And that's why Congress doesn't want to deal with it again. He instead blamed a "revolving door criminal justice system" that lets violent criminals back on the street, and a failure to fully enforce already-existing gun laws.
Speaking to the original ban on the sale of AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s signed by President Clinton in 1994 and which Congress did not renew after 10 years, LaPierre said, "It was enacted … on the basis of saying these were machine guns. That's a lie. They were rapid fire. That's a lie. They made bigger holes. That's a lie. They were more powerful. That's a lie. It was lie after lie after lie.
"Congress found it out. That's why they let it expire, and lies that are found out don't get reenacted."
(CBS)
"Assault weapons are machine guns; they're fully automatic, they spray fire, they're rapid fire. That's what our soldiers use. These guns we're talking about, that the governor wants to ban, are functionally no different than any other gun. The performance characteristics are exactly the same. There's no difference."
"That is unbelievably untrue," Rendell said. "The assault weapons that are used that are sold in sporting goods stores now because the ban has been lifted, they put out a tremendously high amount of fire. And remember, the ban not only banned these assault weapons - it banned large capacity ammunition clips.
"Now I'd like Wayne to explain to the American people why anybody should have the right to have an ammunition clip that has more than 10 bullets in it at one time? What use is that made for, Wayne? Who uses that?"
"Governor, you know there is absolutely no difference between two 10-round magazines and three of another," LaPierre replied.
"There's a big difference," Rendell shot back, saying a shooter would have to reload, indicating police would have a better chance to respond.
But LaPierre continued to argue about the legal language used to define "assault weapon" in the bill: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the guns you want to ban and you don't want to ban. You're going to ban these semi-autos, and then it's going to be handguns, and then it's going to be pump shotguns."
"See, and that's the excuse all the time," Rendell said.
"And it's the truth, and you know it!" LaPierre continued.
Rendell offered that all constitutional amendments are recognized to have limits, such as the ability to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.
While skirting a question by Smith as to whether the NRA's rank-and-file believed the president is interested in overturning the Second Amendment, LaPierre disputed recent claims that the U.S. has been the source of 90% of the weapons being used by Mexican drug cartels.
"You know what they're trying to do right now? They're trying to piggyback this whole phony issue … on the back of the tragedy in Mexico." He challenged President Obama and the U.S. media to prove that 90% of the cartel's guns are smuggled into Mexico from the North.
"It may not be 90 percent, that certainly has been put in question," said Smith "But there's certainly plenty of these guns that are coming across the border."
LaPierre instead said that border agents themselves say they do not need more gun laws, merely better enforcement of current laws.
(CBS)
"Let's go back to the original point. What blessed use is there for one of these assault weapons? What American needs an assault weapon to protect themselves?"
"It's not an assault weapon," Lapierre said. "It's no different than any other."
"It's an assault weapon!"
"You know what happened in Philadelphia, Governor? When the cameras went away, you went away," LaPierre said. "But I'll tell you what we ought to do this morning. Let's agree on this: Every American city, let's put Project Exile, every time a violent felon, drug dealer, gang member touches a gun, let's prosecute."
"I agree with that."
"And let's go to President Obama and say, 'Look, you've got 100 U.S. attorneys. Let's have them do 10 additional prosecutions a month, each one of them. No, better than that - let's do 20.'"
"Harry, let's make a deal right here. I agree with Wayne. I agree with Wayne!" Rendell laughed. "But, also, Wayne, let's you and I agree that the Congress can pass a law saying that individuals can only purchase one handgun a month. That's 12 a year. Who in their god's name needs more than 12 handguns a year?"
"You know, there you go again," LaPierre said. "Like criminals are standing around going, 'Only one, only one.' Don't you get it? They're criminals. They violate all your laws."
"Criminals get their guns from people who buy guns legally. Straw purchasing is the number one problem for crimes," Rendell said.
"And it's illegal, and let's enforce the law," LaPierre said.
More from Face The Nation (4.19.09):
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Face The Nation
Add a Comment See all 372 Comments
- Instead of banning any type of gun and calling it "gun control" why not use REAL gun control and teach people how to safely and correctly use guns, how to respect guns, and how to hit their targets. yes, some people will undoubtedly commit crimes with them, but it will happen a lot less if everybody is packing heat and knows how to defend themselves. it has been proven time and again that racking the slide of a pump action shotgun is a better deterrant for criminals than burglar alarms. if criminals are scared to commit crimes, then we are all safer. so instead of banning assault rifles and machine guns (there is a big defference between the two) i say we sell make them legal, sell them at walmart, but first teach the people gun safety. teach them the correct way to use a gun. ive been around guns since i could walk. im an avid hunter. my father taught me that guns are a tool, and that when used correctly guns are a good thing. correctly doesnt mean robbing stores, or shooting innocent people. instead it is going to ranges, practicing, target shooting, hunting and defense of family and home. if someone threatens my family or me, i will put two in their chest, and then call the police and turn myself over to them. i wont run, i wont fight them, and when they get there, my gun will be unloaded, open, and safed and handed to them grip first. as far as the guy killing two SWAT members through a door, i could do the same with my shotgun and double ought buck, or my pistol, or any one of my other guns. does that mean they are assault weapons to? no. most body armor cant stand up to a point blank shot. maybe instead of taking away guns, we should make better body armor. besides, more people are killed with drunk driving and we still sell alcohol and cars. more people are killed with motorcycle accidents and we still sell them. more people are killed with knives.... you see my point? if you start with one thing, such as assualt weapons, you cant stop until the only thing people have is the dirt around them. if somebody wants to kill someone bad enough, they will find a way to do so... even if they have to use their bare hands. i mean, even karate teaches someone how to kill a person, and that isnt outlawed. look, the first step in taking over a country is to get rid of guns. hitler did it. stalin did it. and bill clinton tried to start doing it with the assault weapons ban. we are a free nation, and the way to keep that freedom is to be armed. nobody would mess with 300 million armed people who know how to use guns. heck, nobody messes with Switzerland. the people there are armed and know how to use their weapons. why not do the same thing here?
- Reply to this comment
- Armed citizens are free citizens. Disarmed citizens are subjects.
One would think that all these anti-gun zealots must live and work in a gated and secured neighborhood where crime is non-existant, in a world where governments rule justly and disaster or unrest never happens, and where the milk man still delivers milk from door to door in his bright white suit. They must live in a place where there children are safe from pedophiles and molesters, where doors are unlocked, and American flags wave in the fragrance of fresh apple pie.
Either that or they are just plain foolish in my view. I own lots of guns and will never give them up. They protect my self, my family, and even my community. They feed me from time to time, and they entertain me often, but most of all THEY MAKE ME HAPPY. That is all the reason I need to have as many bullets as I choose in my magazines. - Reply to this comment
- Law abiding citizen shouldn't need guns, that's why we employee law enforcement officers.
Even if we do buy a gun for self defense, it won't be an assault rifle. If you needed an assault rifle for protection then you really need to be talking with law enforcement, not taking it into your on hands. - Reply to this comment
- "Now I'd like Wayne to explain to the American people why anybody should have the right to have an ammunition clip that has more than 10 bullets in it at one time? What use is that made for, Wayne? Who uses that?"
Can you tough guys answer that?
Posted by sandy19731 at 9:45 AM : Apr 21, 2009
sandy sandy sandy..
I hope you dont vote... - Reply to this comment
- gun control laws only punish law abiding citizens while criminals purchase what they want.
See prohibition circa 1930's
and todays illegal drugs laws. - Reply to this comment
- "Now I'd like Wayne to explain to the American people why anybody should have the right to have an ammunition clip that has more than 10 bullets in it at one time? What use is that made for, Wayne? Who uses that?"
Can you tough guys answer that?
Posted by sandy19731
High capacity magazines are great because you don't need to reload as often.
It's a lot more fun to be shooting rather than have to reload all the time.
Also, just ask your local police officer why they need high capacity magazines.
If I was being attacked by some violent criminals I would want as many bullets in my gun as possible. Also, if you like to fire fully automatic weapons then you will need large capacity magazines because it's not much fun having to reload after every 2 seconds of shooting. - Reply to this comment
- "Now I'd like Wayne to explain to the American people why anybody should have the right to have an ammunition clip that has more than 10 bullets in it at one time? What use is that made for, Wayne? Who uses that?"
Can you tough guys answer that? - Reply to this comment
- I believe the entire piece was severely biased, Rendell was given plenty of air time to pontificate, yet LaPierre did not receive the same opportunity. On top of that the commentator interrupted LaPierre to have him answer a question, aka, "change the subject". He did not interrupt Rendell though, he had plenty of time to monologue.
This is not debate, it is a farce.
As Wayne said "Provide proof of your so-called 90% figure." Let's start there. - Reply to this comment
- One more thing: Why didn't fast Eddie mention the guy that had all the people in California mention the tremendous support for the cop killer that gunned down the four officers. All we saw was that the poor killer was goaded into a gun fight and, that the officers that killed him should be punished. Where was Eddie on that issue?
- Reply to this comment
- We currently have a government that can fire more than any ak-47. It can fire 3.6 trillion in less than about 10 hours. Talk about firepower. You want even have a chance to see them! You can kill people with pencils, if you wanted to. Lay a gun on the table and watch it fire all by itself. NOT!!
- Reply to this comment
- ...our founding fathers never could have imagined we would have computers and be typing over 50 words in one minute
Posted by gunownerdan at 1:51 PM : Apr 20, 2009
Make that 60 words a minute. - Reply to this comment
- It's up to you and me to make sure that our elected officials in Washington understand that if they hope to keep their jobs, they must respect our RIGHTS.....
- Reply to this comment
- Over the past few months, the Brady campaign has been pummeling these same politicians with PHONY "polls" claiming that three out of every four American voters -- including 60% of the gun owners -- want Congress to enact stricter "GUN CONTROL" laws including a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms.
Believe me, as this battle heats up we're going to see a steady drumroll of media lies trying to scare American"s into believing that, if they don"t give up the Second Amendment rights, our streets will be filled with shootouts and crime will run rampant.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control : 56 million........... - Reply to this comment
- Barely a month into Barack Obama's four-year term, his attorney general Eric Holder -- in a public announcement to the national media -- brazenly announced to America and to the world that HE HAS EVERY INTENTION OF DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS WE KNOW IT.....
We need to make our voices heard LOUD AND CLEAR, and we need to make our voices heard RIGHT NOW, before this anti-freedom campaign can go even one step further... - Reply to this comment
- Back when the first amendment was written our founding fathers never could have imagined we would have computers and be typing over 50 words in one minute yet freedom of speech is definitely protected on the internet!
- Reply to this comment
- raflin1,
I have a blunderbuss and it is awesome! They are like hand-held cannons but I do prefer my Kalashnikov because they are some of the most reliable guns ever created. Back when the second amendment was written they had tiny "pocket pistols" that were the size of the palm of my hand. We should start making those again! - Reply to this comment
- raflin1,
By no means must you be a "neocon" or even a conservative in order to have good taste in firearms! - Reply to this comment
- Now if you are talking about defending yourselves against an oppressive government, I agree with that. But the reason we have so much crime is that we are not taking care of our own people. That is why we need to tax the rich and nationalize some big corporations. Then we would have the money to feed and clothe our citizens. Give everyone health care and good eduction. And not have the ridiculous situation where people are desperate enough to go work for Wal-Mart and the military.
- Reply to this comment
- There are good rguments on both sides of this issue. This is going to call for honest compromise on both sides.
We have to maintain our rights to bear arms, but we cannot ask Police Officers to face an increasing growing number of citizens with enough fire power to kill them in a brief second. The number of arms sold by unscrupulous weapons dealers in the U.S. is putting our own citizens at risk when they used in drug-trafficking on both sides of the border. - Reply to this comment
- The original founding documents of this great land provided the citizen the rights,AND THE MEANS,to defend themselves.
Conversely I would say you have the right not to defend yourself.
So why don't all the anti-gunners just shut up and exercise their right not to defend themselves?
Armed carjacking?Home invasion? Call 911.
I would say let me know how you make out-but you'll probably only need the coroner,anyway.
So why don't you leave "gun nuts" alone?You certainly have the right to die on your own doorstep,we would not infringe on that.. - Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
