I have no assault weapon nor do I want to have one. But this ban and all the current BS being propagated by the media makes me mad. Yesterday, Diane Sawyer was asking an NRA representative why she needed a weapon that would spray 700 rounds per minute. The NRA representative patiently explained that machine guns were already banned under separate law, that the weapon described by MS Sawyer was a machine gun, and the assault weapons ban was not needed to outlaw such a weapon. Then Sawyer challenged the NRA spokesperson to explain why a female chief of police on the show advocating the renewal of the assault weapons ban advocated the ban if assault weapons were as the NRA spokesperson said they were. Sawyer also asked why do we NEED assault weapons. Well, our freedoms should not depend on demonstrating a need for something. Do we need Corvettes, Dodge Vipers, and Mustang GT sports cars? I think not. Do we need motorcycles? I think not. Do executives need more than $1 Million compensation per year? I think not. The question of NEED is entirely inappropriate in a free country such as ours.

Today our local news station -- the same one which Sawyer is on -- brought up the same issue. Today they said a weapon under the ban today could be legal on the street Monday -- a weapon that fires 30 rounds in 3 seconds. I calculate that to be 600 rounds a minute: again, they are misrepresenting the assault weapons ban to cover machine guns not the semi automatics that the ban actually covers.

As another poster said, all political debate bends the truth to achieve their goals. That sucks. I was discussing with my wife this morning that it is at the point that I can't believe anything I hear on TV, when it comes to major political issues. How can we have an informed electorate if the media participates in the cooking of facts to give their faction an advantage?

It seems the NRA or some other gun advocate organization needs to have a group dedicated to collecting statistics, analyzing statistics, and providing factual information WELL DOCUMENTED so unbelievers can follow up. For instance, I would be very interested to know what the concensus of police chiefs is on the assault weapons ban. I would be very interested to know what the concensus of police officers is on the assault weapons ban. I couldn't care less about what one police chief found god knows where -- Washington DC, San Francisco, Boston, Provincetown Massaschusetts? -- thinks about the assault weapons ban. Then again, it really doesn't matter what the police think or don't think about this ban. The police do not constitute the entire electorate. We don't arrange our affairs to make life convenient for police. No disrespect intended to the police, but if they said it would be convenient that all guns be banned -- I'm sorry, however inconvenient this might be for them, it isn't convenient for me.