"Ask your Senators to vote for S. 1034 to renew the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which will expire in September 2004 if Congress does not take action. The Ban has been successful in decreasing the supply and availability of specified military-style, semi-automatic guns with multiple assault weapons features such as high ammunition capacity and rapid-fire capability (e.g., the Uzi and AK-47). These guns are not well suited for hunting or self-defense, but they are the weapons of choice for criminals." -- The NEA teachers union, pushing for renewal of the hideous Assault Weapons Ban.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The ban has not decreased the supply or availability of certain types of firearms. The AK-47 was banned, so the SAR-2 was born to replace it. The guns are essentially the same.

None of the guns banned were rapid fire. That the NEA calls them semi-automatic and claims they are rapid fire shows that they either don't know the definition of semi-automatic, or are deliberately being deceptive. By definition, any semi-automatic firearm only fires one shot for each pull of the trigger.

The guns can be used for both hunting and self defense, although the latter is more likely. Also these firearms are most certainly NOT the firearms of choice for criminals. Very few crimes were committed with these guns before the ban, and there is no reason to expect crime to increase after the ban expires.

I'm curious as to why a labor union would support such a worthless piece of legislation, and I don't really know what they stand to gain. Statistically, there are no safety benefits to the ban, and I wonder if teachers want their union dues spent in such a manner. It does worry me, however, that these people have our nation's children captive for 8 hours a day.

UPDATE: Ask and ye shall receive. Kevin offers just such an instance where an AK-47 was used defensively.