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.

[eskimo]

Supporters of Team America are not petulantly threatening to take their ball and go home because their every play is not called.

The supporters of team America are also the owners and petulance is not one of their flaws, thank God. Most realize they must keep focused on that prize that is liberty. A small faction of self-important jocks has to brought back into line before their lust for glory perverts the game entirely.

[woerm]

Hey,

good show Cleetus got hisself a real gun now!

no more mattellmouse guns guys,

r

[justshutupandtakeit]

NO, but we will have them attempting to undermine Bush as the Moby comments encourage.

RATS are DemocRATS not all those opposed to Bush. Those non-RATS opposed to Bush are just RAT helpers.

YOU are the one defining Bush's base as being those people in agreement with you on this issue. Most of the polling information indicates his base is still in his corner.

Madness is believing that one can accomplish one's purpose by pursuing policies which will clearly work against that purpose. Madness is believing that the President can be re-elected only by the minority which considers itself conservative or the minority which considers itself Republican. It is your option to be insulted or not but I have not personally insulted you.

[looscnnn]

"My name is meant to do just the opposite by provoking those who disagree to do just that. Works wonderfully. "

It is because of the "just shut up and take it" attitude that we are in the mess we are in today. If we had not "just shut up and take it" and instead stood up to and pressured those in government, we would be much better off as a country.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no doubt that such forces are a nuisance but against a well-armed and WELL LED modern military not much more than that.

[looscnnn]

"My understanding is not the point since I do not get to impose it upon anyone. What is the point is the understanding of the various courts which deal with this question."

Wrong, you are enabling their incorrect understanding by making statements like that. If we do not speak up, they will just keep perverting the Constitution. Unless that is your agenda.

[looscnnn]

"We know the "assault" weapons catagory is fraudulent."

Hey justshutup, you are really starting to show that you might be a "seminar caller".

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "Only two teams can play you can join one or the other. "

The "winner-take-all" nature of our government assures that there will be at most two parties with any considerable influence at any particular time.

There is no mechanism which assures that the Republican Party or the Demoncrat Party will exist indefinitely. My purpose in becoming a Republican was to kill the Demoncrat Party because it is anti-gun. If the Republicans engage in anti-gun behavior, then my mission becomes to kill both parties.

The Republican Party did not exist at the founding of our nation. The need to pursue abolition of slavery was, I believe, the key reason for its creation. If gunowners must join the Libertarians to assure their rights, then I believe they will.

If Bush signs the AWB, I will be a registered Libertarian the next day.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Another post from tpaineintheass, another distortion.

"pointed at the government" meant that the militia was pointed at the government not that the government was not bound by its strictures. Any non-moron would have known that from the context of the post which was clearly discussing what the militia was to protect and from whom.

Suspected gangsters are not disarmed and I never discussed them rather, as would be clear to non-morons, the felons composing the terrorist gangs called Crips and Bloods were under discussion.

Said nothing about "allowing" majority rule to prevail but rather of the necessity to have more of the population understand the unnecessary gun control laws.

Pardon me for quoting portions of the 2d, what a sin.

States were not bound by the BoR until the 14th amendment was passed no matter how often you claim the contrary. You even referenced the case in 1833 which decided the question in another thread.

Inmates are NOT the issue but the falsity of the Absolutist theory of the 2d amendment is one I was discussing.

Then there will continue to be attempts to restrict gun owners rights. If it is true that the majority will be for restricting them they will be further restricted. I hope that will not be the case but throwing out leaders like Bush will ensure that it will. Particularly since it would mean the SC will have more liberal judges appointed to it.

[looscnnn]

"rather than the politically expedient thing."

The question that Bush needs to ask himself is which is the politally expedient way to go? Sign it and most likely loose more votes than he gains by signing it or not sign it and maybe loose a few votes because of other issues and not gain those for the ban, but keep those that would have left him if he signed.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Well your implication was that somehow thing were worse since Bush became president.

[TigersEye]

There is no historical evidence that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. There is good historical evidence that it applied only to the federal government.

Your POV is skewed; with all due respect. Both of these statements are non-sequitur. In proper perspective the first ten Amendments of the BoR's applies to "the people." They enumerate and describe general 'inalienable' rights of individuals in particular ways. (The Tenth asserts that the enumeration is not exhaustive.) They also specify particular actions that would violate those 'inalienable' rights.

The BoR's does not grant or in any way limit the rights of 'the people.' The DoI expressly delineates the source of rights (our Creator) and their nature (inalienable).

With or without the 14th A.; what definition of the word 'inalienable' would the founders have considered infringible by the States? Do you contend that the founders intended the Constitution to be protection of 'God given' rights only from the intrusion of the federal government and that State gov.'s could ignore or dismiss them as they saw fit?

[looscnnn]

"In Vietnam the US military was fighting a war wherein there was no intention of winning. Any enemy of America will not restrict its military as the politicians did ours in Vietnam."

Wrong. When we first went there, we intended to win and we did not handcuff the military at first. We were still not winning. We had to adjust our tactics and increase the amount of fire (more men and bigger weapons) to start making advances. Then the higher ups decided to place limitations on the military.

"Nor was it true that there weren't organized military units from N. Vietnam fighting our forces as well as the paramilitary units used behind the lines."

Really? Who were we fighting then? They had both organized military units and "militias".

[justshutupandtakeit]

There are certain times where proper action becomes critical and to not act ensures great misery and defeat. That was what we faced after 9/11. It required great leadership and that was what Bush provided.

You are correct that most times there is not a need to act with great urgency but we are not in those times now.

Taking the war to the enemy has made us safer and that is the indispensible leadership Bush supplied and why he must be retained for the good of the country. Those special ops and intel forces are useless unless they are employed and evidence indicates that Kerry would fall back on the Clinton policy of non-response to our enemies.

Surely you are aware that Kerry voted AGAINST providing the funds for our forces in Iraq after voting to allow them to go in. You would really risk elevating such leadership to the Oval office? There would be NO rebuilding under such a leader but further undermining of our Intel capacities and military ones as well.

Capable leaders are not necessarily electable as President or even Congress. Jeb Bush would do very little different than his brother. He has been attacked by the uncompromising purists as well on various fronts.

[looscnnn]

"The mujadeen in Afganistan were funded from without, supplied with equipment and advanced armaments from without and provided trained fighters from without."

Sorry, but muskets and old mosin nagants, etc. were/are not advanced amaments. There were some advanced armaments, but they were mostly shoulder fired missles. The trained fighters provided were a few CIA, etc. members to teach them to fire the missles and to help with tactics. There were no trained armies of men provided, that would have resulted in war with Russia.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Though it had a nice ring to it nothing said about my arguments in 364 was true.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My state's GOP is run by the terminally stupid and was disemboweled by the corrupt ex-Gov Ryan. Soon to be seen in a federal court near you.

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "Professional armies employ planes, missles, tanks, artillary, aircraft carriers and submarines. There is no prospect of that type of force being seriously countered by modern day militias even with assault weapons. Be realistic. "

The enemies of the militia will not be the US Army. It will be the politicians who have violated their oaths and the tyrannical bureaucrats who carry out unConstitutional edicts.

The first level of support for unConstitutional control is the local police department. How can gun control laws be enforced if local police will not participate? The participation of local police must be opposed and reversed.

If the local police arm themselves with tanks and fighter planes, then they have become the US Military but without the oath. Where will they live? Where will their children go to school? Where will they shop? Who will provide them haircuts? Who will repair the plumbing in their homes?

If you intend to be a useful member of the Militia and oppose the infringements of the right to keep and bear arms, then you need to work on your creativity.

The refusal of the people of Boston to pay a tax on tea caused the Boston Tea Party.

Punishment for destruction of the tea caused the government to place Boston under martial law.

Opposition to martial law caused the government to attempt to confiscate arms from Lexington and Concord. Thus was fired "the shot heard round the world".

The clearest indication of what the future holds for our nation is the degree to which some of us recognize the BATF as the jack-booted-thugs who killed the children of Waco. Anyone who believes that anti-gun laws should have been used as a pretext to attack and kill those people is my enemy.

[weaponeer]

I really shouldn't read threads like this, it makes me depressed. Seems so different from four years ago.

So how's it goin'?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Uh, maybe because of your reference to my "idol."