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]

I would vote for a RAT if he had his head screwed on straight and the Pubbie didn't. But I would never vote for one when the Pubbie is clearly better for the nation.

It is false that the NRA always supports a republican though it should in the vast majority of cases.

[spunkets]

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

Yes.

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "It [CFR] is not unconstitutional."

Let's see.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ...

I see no exception involving the timing of elections. Perhaps you could explain.

[gatex]

"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. "

Since your homepage does not indicate any military experience, please state your expertise for stating that I and other ex-miltary Freepers have had no "training."

Please include the National Guard, which is the "organized" militia and the "unorganized" militia, as defined by federal law.

[spunkets]

"a ragtag bunch of "militia" with no training and no advanced weaponry could defeat a modern army. Few things are more laughable."

Instead of focusing on making sure the law sunsets you are denegrating the 2nd Amend. of the Bill o0f Rights and advancing it's renewal. All I can say to your display of jovial confidence is, "fine, bring it on!" It won't be your mama announcing come and get it.

[tpaine]

When did Smith side with the "anti-war pacifist libertarians" ?. Got a link?
240

____________________________________


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

---

Sorry, I don't see him siding with the "anti-war pacifist libertarians" in that speech.. -- Where are these pacifists?

Any here on FR?

[gatex]

"Do you have any idea why that particular wording was selected?"

It is obvious to anyone who has read the Contitution----

"The People" is used several times in the Constitution.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have no "militia theory" merely quoting the words of the amendment itself hardly implies such a thing.

Looks like you can attempt distortion of anything but are rarely successful with those who can read. Nothing in the second amendment indicates it to be directed AT the state but it clearly states that it exists to PROTECT A FREE STATE. It is true that initially it did not include the states and they routinely violated the BoR until the 14th amendment theoretically put a stop to that.

Though Jesse and Rev. Al don't like it FELONS are not allowed to legally possess firearms. I have no problem with that any more than I do with not allowing inmates to possess them in the joint.

How is the statement of a simple FACT an "emotional appeal?" When the majority of the voters stops falling for the gungrabbers bullshiite the gun control laws will be thrown out. Nothing emotional there and it shouldn't be hard for even you to grasp the point.

[eskimo]

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

Quit the nonsense. People means everyone persons, citizens, individuals, doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs, everyone! Why is that simple fact so difficult for you to comprehend?

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have no idea which specific delusion you are laboring under but YOU certainly have never proven ME wrong about anything.

[justshutupandtakeit]

And your screen name says what about you? Your I.Q.?

[spunkets]

"It is false that the NRA cannot advertise in print AT ANY TIME it wishes."

No it is not. The NRA and all other groups are limited as to what they can do in fed elections by fed law. Everyone of those laws is unconstitutionalal. Whether they are spending limits, donation limits, or prohibitions and rules on coordination of activities, they are unconstitutional on their face. Notwithstanding the claims of anyone, including the SCOTUS.

[flashbunny]

He can't comprehend anything he doesn't agree with.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Our current Leftists are not terrified by the 2d amendment and that has nothing to do with what Leftist regimes have done (and Rightist regimes too.) You are arguing a different point than I made.

[flashbunny]

Whatever. Keep going on under the false belief that people still take you seriously. They don't.

[spunkets]

"all it has to do is NOT refer to a specific candidate. "

Right, let 'em guess. That's a limit on an individuals Freedom of speech, isn't it?

[eskimo]

And your screen name says what about you?

Perhaps you need to consider what yours says about you.

[gatex]

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

Now show us your wisdom---

"The people" -- Is used in the Constitution in ---

Preamble--
Article 1, section 2 --
1 st Amendment--
2 nd Amendment --
4 th Amendment --
9 th Amendment--
10 th Amendment --
17 th Amendment---

So explain what all these "people" mean ---are they all the militia ?

[TigersEye]

Ask the Taliban militia how well it fared against the US military.

Yes indeed. I can just imagine C-130's circling around urban areas in the U.S. taking shots at suspected "militia nuts" as they step out of their homes and businesses and B-150's dropping daisy cutters on their foothills hideaways near Denver, Tucson, Reno, Seattle, etc., etc., etc. The general public will simply rejoice when they see the Strykers and Apaches coming into the 'hood to root out those nasty right-wing kooks who always hang a deer carcass in the garage each fall.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Bush has not "pandered to homos" by not launching a witchhunt in the military. Everyone knows there have always been homos in the military. They are still being kicked out when the evidence comes to light.

He is hated by feminists and has in no way "pandered" to them.

CFR is not what most of its critics claim. I doubt seriously if you have read it since if you had you would realize that it changes very little and does no fundamental damage to any constitutional rights.

He is not in control of the Senate. Blame the Senate for its actions not the Executive. Maybe you have him confused with a dictator.

Farm bills are nothing new and changing that philosophy will take more that a President.

He announced no amnesty.

So most of your opposition is based upon false interpretations and distortions. Why am I not surprised?