Maloney (D-NY) claimed, “The ‘R’ in NRA no longer standsnfor ‘Rifle.’ I say it stands for ‘Reprehensible.'” With a viciousnessntoward the citizenry rarely exhibited by public officials,nMaloney charged the NRA with endorsing the murder ofnschoolchildren: “[T]he NRA argument [is] that the SecondnAmendment should allow some screwball with a ‘streetsweeper’nto blow away whole playgrounds full of [children].”nAfter smearing gun owners and the NRA, the rights-strippersnlied about the bill itself, falsely moderating the extent of thenban in another attempt to sway fence-sitting congressmen. Althoughnthe bill outlaws all ten-plus magazines and roughly 180nguns, only 19 of which are named by the bill, here is how thensupporters depicted the legislation:nRepresentative Morella: “It bans only 19 assault weaponsnRepresentative Gilchrest: This is “a bill to ban thenmanufacture and sale of 19 specific types of assaultnweapons …”nRepresentative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA): The bill is an”ban of 19 specific guns…”nRepresentative Lowey: “[T]hese 19 specific weapons arcnused disproportionately in crime …”nRepresentative Hughes: “It will eliminate 19 weapons,nnot as many as has been suggested …”nRepresentative Penny: “Today’s measure is tighter andnmore defensible, listing 19 specific weapons…”nRepresentative Eric Fingerhut (D-OH): The bill “will bannthe manufacture and possession of 19 semiautomaticnassault weapons…”nThe list goes on and on. At least a dozen more congressmennmade the same false claim. Not only did they lie about the effectnof the legislation, they failed to tell the truth about use ofnthe banned guns in crimes. After “assault weapons” showed upnmore frequently among BATF gun traces requested by policenagencies, antigun advocates distorted the reality that gun tracesnrepresent in order to bludgeon the Second Amendment. I’henCongressional Research Service (CRS), an arm of Congress,nquoted BATF itself in a report: “BATF does not always know ifna firearm being traced has been used in a crime . . . sometimesna firearm is traced simply to determine the rightful owner afternit is found by a law enforcement agency.” CRS added,n”firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random samplen[of guns used in crime] and cannot be considered representativenof the larger universe of all firearms used by criminalsnor any subset of that universe.” CRS reminded Congress thatnBATF “noted it is not possible to determine if traced firearms arenrelated to criminal activity.” (Emphases added.) BATF itselfncautioned, “concluding that assault weapons are used in I of 10nfirearms-related crimes is tenuous at best since our traces . . .nmay not be truly representative of all crimes.”nAll this information was delivered to Congress long before thendebate on the gun ban. Now take a look at how BATF gunntraces were described by the men and women who have beennelected with the public trust to make our laws:nRepresentative Derrick: “From 1990 to 1993, the percentnof firearms traced [lay BATF] that were assaultnweapons rose from 5.9 to 8.1 percent. Since studiesnshow that assault weapons make up only one percentnof the firearms in circulation, assault weapons are innproportion used more often to commit crimes.”nRepresentative Slaughter: ” [W] hen a firearm is used forncrime, it is 19 times more likely to be an assaultnweapon than some other type of gun.”nRepresentative Timothy Roemer (D-IN): “[T]his onenpercent is used for over eight percent of criminalnactivity.”nRepresentative Klein: “Although they are only one percentnof all guns, they account for neariy ten percent ofnviolent crimes.”nRepresentative Morella: “After all, although semiautomaticnassault weapons are less than one percent of thisnnation’s privately owned guns, they accounted for 8.4npercent of all violence traced to crime from 1988 ton1991.”nRepresentative John Conyers (D-MI): “An assaultnweapon is 20 times more likely to be used in crimenRepresentative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT): “Assaultnweapons comprise less than one percent of the gunsnin circulation . . . yet they account for eight percent ofnthe guns traced in the investigation of criminalnactivity.”nRepresentative Lowey: “The ATF has compiled tracingndata that shows that these 19 specific weapons arenused disproportionately in violent’crimes.”nRepresentative Vic Fazio (D-CA): “[T]he ATF reports inn1989, assault weapons made up ten percent of gunsntraced in crimes.”nRepresentative Schumer: “[T]hey are one percent of thenweapons with eight percent of the killing.”nRepresentative Skaggs: “Assault weapons . . . account fornsomewhere between .5 and one percent of all guns. . .nbut they’re 10 to 20 times more likely to be involvednin a crime.”nThe truth is that less than four percent of all homicides in thenUnited States are committed with rifles of any ty|3e and lessnthan one percent of homicides involve rifles of a military caliber,naccording to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1990. By contrast,nfists and feet are used to kill five percent of victims, andnknives account for 14.5 percent of murder weapons.nAlthough this information is widely available, and indeednwas made available to Congress, the bill passed the Mouse onnMay 5, 1994, by a vote of 216 to 214, ensuring its considerationnby a conference committee on the so-called “Crime Bill.”nI’he House debate and passage of the bill painfully confirmnwhat many Americans already suspect about their elected representatives—namely,nthat these men and women, despite theirncarefully crafted media images, make decisions on laws that affectnthe lives of millions of people based less on careful, honestnreasoning than on blind prejudice and mendacity. If, throughnstupidity, lies, ignorance, and hate, Congress can strip gun ownersnof rights explicitly protected by the Second Amendment,nthe rights of all Americans are in jeopardy.nFor gun owners, the worst may be yet to come. During thendebate. Representative Sidney “iates (D-IL) summarized thenviews of many of his colleagues and other public officials whennhe claimed, “Nowhere in the basic document of the UnitednStates is there a Constitutional right, written or implied, givingnan individual a separate right to bear arms.”nNo one rose to refute him. <5>nnnMARCH 1995/21n