Assault weapons ban back in play; Feinstein tries to get reluctant Congress ...

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb 9, 2004 | by Edward Epstein

[Lazamataz]

Washington -- Gun control hasn't emerged as a leading issue in the 2004 presidential race, but that is likely to change as Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein intensifies her effort to win renewal of the decade-old assault weapons ban, which expires in September.

[El Gato]

If I'm not mistaken, there is nothing in the proposed law that states: if a gun has a manufacturer's defect and an injury occurs due to that defect, that company is NOT liable

Quite the opposite, the bill, at least the version that has passed the House, contains a provision that allows suites in the case of a defective product.

[Double Tap]

I think one of the biggest threats to stopping a renewal of the AWB is the gun makers. They are doing fine as is. But they would really like to have lawsuit protection.

[justshutupandtakeit]

On any given subject there are a few posters who are fixated on it. There have been Civil War threads where I have been arguing almost singlehandedly against a group to which that is a principle subject of interest. Most posters just give up arguing with them since they are very difficult to communicate with on a rational basis. I am foolish enough not to give up. However, that does not mean I am the only one here who believes as I do.

This is true with this issue and most of the conversation is between a few people. Most are at the very extreme of FR and not at all representative of FR. (Not that I am claiming I am either.)

No, I have not heard of the "hassan factor." But unless terrorism is confronted now it will be almost impossible to eradicate in the future. As it is it will be a decades long struggle thanks to the RAT destruction in the 90s. Anything which assists RAT return to power is anti-American.

Hyperbole is generally inappropriate and a good example is equating a AWB with losing the "real America." It is just silly to think that.

[El Gato]

Already happened, 10 months ago.

[gatex]

"This does not compute."

It does not compute that behavior will change if that behavior does not receive a penalty.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no better (or conservative) man who could TODAY be elected president than Bush. That is the simple truth of it. Those who cannot see that are the Whackjobs and are objectively allied with Hillary, Dean, Osama, Kerry, the French and the Islamaniacs.

Very few intelligent people piss against the wind without expecting to get wet. But go right ahead just don't forget your raincoat.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I merely stated that as a matter of fact and don't expect any necessity for such a defense nor would I support the extension using that argument.

[gatex]

"On any given subject there are a few posters who are fixated on it. ... I am foolish enough not to give up."

[Blood of Tyrants]

Incorrect. The NRA has already stated that they will kill the gun manufacturers protection bill if looks as if the Senate will pass it with the AW rider. Besides, if what you propose happened, enough Congresscritters are pro-gun to kill it in the conference committee.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton and Madison both argued that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights were implicitly protected under the Constitution since there were no power granted the government to take them away. This included the Right to Bear arms.

Hence there was no necessity for the 2d amendment at all and thus your statement is false.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. If it DOES get to conference committee, they will only have to sit on it for a maximum of about 2-3 months because the bill will be dead and have to be reintroduced in the new session of Congress.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Unfortunately there is considerable disagreement on what our rights are. Jesse Jackson thinks there is a right to health care, housing, food etc. We have no voted to agree with him as of yet.

How many rights do you think there are? Hamilton and Madison were opposed to the BoR because they feared it would be used to limit the rights of Americans rather than protect them.

[gatex]

"Hence there was no necessity for the 2d amendment at all and thus your statement is false."

Please tell us what gun rights would exist without the Second Amendment.

And please tell us why some of the states with the most restrictive gun-control laws do not have a Second Amendment in the State Constitution.

[drypowder]

I think that's what I said. There's nothing in the law that states absence of liability for a defective product.

[Double Tap]

Plus it should be obvious to all that the spate of gun control laws stopped when the GOP achieved more control of the Congress and the Presidency. I see no reason to believe it will be resumed UNLESS knuckleheads join forces with the RATS to defeat Bush.

Umm NO.

The "spat" of gun control laws stopped when the Republicans got control of the house in '94. It had nothing to do with who was president. In fact, the Republicans actually acted like Republicans for the most part when Clinton was in office. So maybe we could expect the Republicans to grow some spines if a democrat were to take office?

[JamesA]

"MOLON LABE" this about covers it all.

[IGOTMINE]

Really! I didn't know that the NRA had veto authority.

The bottom line here is you have to trust the Republicans to hold the line on this issue. I equate this trust to Charlie Brown believing that Lucy will hold the ball for him to kick.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course, I can read the 2d amendment and understand exactly what it means. Since the militia was considered to be every able bodied man the amendment means that every one of them had the right to keep and bear arms. Illinois' constitution makes that explicit even while allowing their disarming.

It is false that the gun-grabbers believe the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." That is NOT their argument. Rather their argument is that the militia is what has the right to keep and bear arms not individual citizens. That is NOTHING like what I said.

Even during the Revolutionary War the failures of militias were obvious (except against Indians.) Washington was driven to distraction by their unreliability, ineffectiveness and tendency to run like rabbits when the fighting started. That is why he created the Continental army. Today a militia would be even worse.

[El Gato]

being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state. I am sure such points mean nothing to you.

You've got the emphasis wrong. "being necessary to the security of a FREE state.". You also have a problem with English grammer. The main clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's up to the people to decide if and how those arms shall be utlitized.

Early militias were as likely to be controled by cities and towns, rather than the State government, some were independent of all governments. In any event, the militia are the people themselves, or at least the male portion thereof, just wearing a "different hat".

[tpaine]

When did Smith side with the "anti-war pacifist libertarians" ?. Got a link?