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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No psychic powers are necessary just a memory of past postings.

I never made any such claim that those opposed to me are not conservatives however when I see people adopt plans which will weaken the nation I seriously doubt their true motives.

Criticizing Bush is fine and I don't agree with all he has done. However, just because I am hot doesn't mean I will jump into the oven to show someone a lesson.

[freeeee]

How many rights do you think there are?

It would be impossible to list them all or even come up with a number, as they are a subset of an infinite list: all possible human behavior. However it is possible to define a right: That which does not interfere with the rights of others. I think you're familiar with the libertarian non-coercion principle, so I won't go into it further here.

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.

They were right, so the 9th and 10th Amendments were added, which couldn't be clearer. And yet those were ignored all the same. It is evident that government (as it has evolved) has no intention of honoring rights, and the Bill of Rights has been enormously useful in slowing it somewhat. Example: Imagine going to court and arguing a warrant is needed for a search without the 4th Amendment.

[Travis McGee]

Recall the havoc caused by 2 lamebrains with a rifle in DC a year back.

Imagine thousands of far better trained riflemen, with a long list of specific domestic enemies of the Constitution and other traitors.

[William Tell]

old3030 said: "This is so stupid. I guess I would still vote for Bush if he did sign a new AWB, ..."

I have never knowingly violated a gun law. Renewal of the AWB will change that. I have already committed myself to never voting for a Demoncrat. The Republicans can join that group by allowing the AWB renewal.

The article understates the effect of supporting anti-gun laws. Gore not only didn't take West Virginia and New Hampshire, he failed to take his home state of Tennessee.

[Squantos]

Yep....and don't forget "who" helps push such crap on us. Kinda like the Movie Star who helped LBJ push the 68GCA thru congress...........what was his name again ??? Oh yeah .......Chuck Heston.

Stay Safe !

[Charles Martel]

If push ever came to shove, the modern militia would not be fighting the Army, part of it probably would be part of the Army. They would be fighting the politicians. Which brings up the dirty little secret that the Constitution violating critters shouldn't be worried about assault weapons, most of which are chambered for relatively puny rounds, but rather things like M-1A1's or just plain old bolt actions, anything from K-98 Mausers to Moison-Nagents, to standard "deer rifles", chambered in something akin to 30-06, 8mm, .308, .303 etc. Something tha can reach out and touch someone. Those are what they will need to be worried about, should it ever come to "voting from the rooftops".

That's why the big, mean 'ol .50 BMG rifles make the anti-gun left so apoplectic - they don't want their limousines perforated.

It's also interesting to note that in the midst of all this legislative and political hair-pulling, the U.S. Army continues to ship thousands of M1 Garand rifles to happy purchasers via the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Most purchasers attend a "clinic" which teaches basic operation, maintenance and safe handling practices. It seems that even though Congress tries hard to ignore the "militia", the D.O.D. still nurtures it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and that you are not trying to deliberately misstate my comment which pointed to the obvious point that the Constitution preceded the 2d amendment. It in no way implied lack of relevance.

[Blood of Tyrants]

They will do what they think is politically expedient to maintain power.

Exactly. And it will be political suicide to renew the AW ban. It GWB signs the AW extension IN ANY FORM, he WILL NOT be re-elected, and he knows it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yeah, and ...?

[Dead Corpse]

His Empire of Lies speech comes to mind. As does his advocating changing the non-agreession principle into a "zero agression principle".

[Mortimer Snavely]

'When asked if Bush would work for the ban's renewal, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said Bush's commitment to the ban remains strong. "The president has long said he supports it, and that has not changed,'' he said. '

I am so glad that we don't have one of those gun hating Democrats in the White House. It just makes feel that much more, well, safe and sound, don'cha know?

God forbid that any Democrat make it to the White House this time around. They are just so cynical in the way they play fast and loose with those core conservative principles, like 2nd Amendment rights. They might do all sorts of horrible things to RKBA.

[6ppc]

automatic ammunition clips

Huh?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yeah, that was what I was refering to although the militia predated the nation state and the states. Militias were almost always used to defend the colonists and later communities against indian attack. There were a few instances when it was used with British regulars against the French. But it was only effective against untrained and undisciplined Indian tribes. Those were the only enemies of the nation/colony/state which it could achieve success on a regular basis.

How ridiculous is the idea that the Soviets could defeat our military and be beaten by a militia? Very ridiculous even absurd.

The Patriot aside, actual history shows that the British had their way in the South during the Revolution. South Carolina (including Charleston) and Georgia were under British control throughout the War until they decided to leave.

Militias were notorious for being undisciplined, unreliable and for running away when the battle started. See what Washington believed if you don't believe me. It is not hard to find out the truth about militias in that day and age.

But this is part and parcel of a romantic nostalgia which refuses to face facts about those days.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote: You will have never seen, nor will you ever see any statement by me that the Constitution is not relevent.


"Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate,"
-107-


_______________________________________


From # 107..
Hoisted on your own petard once again. -- Please, continue to babble on, -- quibbling that you don't ~really~support the AWB, you just support the concept of -- "some laws wrt firearms being legitimate" -- & that its a 'right' of the president to sign it, -- or some such BS line of the day..

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only in your dreams are liberals terrified of the second amendment. They honestly believe gun controls work to reduce crime even though there is massive evidence showing the contrary. No one in his right mind would fear anything called a "militia" today. It would be like a combination of the Keystone Cops and a Chinese firedrill and would be brushed aside by any capable military force. It could cause some confusion and disruption through guerilla activity but that is it.

As you indicated earlier the point of the militia and the 2d amendment was to protect the State from its enemies. Islamaniacs are that enemy. It is not just some arbitrary protection of rights but to protect a Free state otherwise the militia would not have even been mentioned.

Oh, I feel real comfrontable at the idea that a ragtag bunch of "militia" with no training and no advanced weaponry could defeat a modern army. Few things are more laughable. Ask the Taliban militia how well it fared against the US military.

[eskimo]

It is a bad law and should not be reauthorized but to turn against Bush on this issue is folly considering the alternatives.

The alternative is to fight for our individual liberties defined by our Constitution.

Any counter "alternative", even if it comes from your favorite political idol, is just surrender.

[gatex]

"Felons are not allowed guns, inmates in prisons are not allowed arms."

Husbands, whose wives say they have been threatened and get a restraining order, are not allowed arms.

It is misleading to say that only felons and inmates are not allowed arms --- that is the Sarah Brady tactic.

[Double Tap]

The initial meaning of the 2d was that the Federal government could not infringe upon that right. States could and did infringe many, if not all, the rights mentioned in the BoR. Now they are applicable to the states.

No, wrong again. You are thinking of the 1st Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not mention Congress. The 2nd enumerates an inalienable right, that can not be infringed.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The members of the militia which was stated as a justification for the 2d.

Is the "people" the same as "an individual person?"

Wonder why the amendment was not written to say "...the right of citizens or inhabitants?" This isn't a trick question. Do you have any idea why that particular wording was selected?

[45Auto]

I didn't say that I thought it likely that there will be an armed revolt; I said that there is "always the unpredictable". The 2nd was, is, and always has been about at least guaranteeing that the means to remove a dictatorial regime was kept in the hands of the people. The Founders were acutely aware of their own long and miserable European history. They saw and more importantly they understood the decrepit human conditions that existed in any type of tyranny, especially the tyranny of monarchy. They also were acutley aware that the difference between free men and subjects was the former had access to arms and the latter did not.

The lesson from history since the Founding of the nation, especially the last century, has only demonstrated how right they were. Therefore, I view any attempt to remove arms from the possession of the lawabiding as a prerequisite to tyranny, and I see those who are constantly about this 'devil's work' as enemies of freedom. An armed citzenry is essential to liberty.