Biased Media

One of the local papers, the Wichita Eagle, did an opinion column on the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Two things to quote and comment on.

But ban proponents also have a point -- while conceding that the law was deeply flawed, they point to polls showing strong public support for a ban.

Hmm. This sounds like the very same legislation that brought about prohibition. It was popular enough to get passed, but doing so was an unpopular move that sold entire cities to organized crime and street gangs. Legislation shouldn't be based on a popularity contest, but with modern day politics it is.

We believe many Americans want a commonsense middle ground on gun control -- one that respects the rights and sport and hunting traditions of our culture, while acknowledging the need for safety features and restrictions on certain guns or ammunition designed for narrowly lethal purposes, such as military sniping or piercing body armor.
Still, is the benefit to public safety significant and measurable enough to warrant a truly tough and meaningful law that would restrict "assault" weapons across the board?

I would like to know what "middle ground" they propose. They didn't like how the end result never did get the "assault weapons" off the streets, it just stopped production. So my question is, are they advocating door-to-oor confiscations? If so, there will be far more blood shed based on such illegal actions than any done by the dirty "assault weapons."