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]

A description of the historic role of militias in not a "theory."

[TigersEye]

Yeow! Sorry I started that; well, actually Laz did.

Some people put panties on their head when they take their gun out for a night on the town others put the panties on the gun. Tastes may vary but everyone agrees; you have to dress for success.

[Charles Martel]

The question that Bush needs to ask himself is which is the politally expedient way to go? Sign it and most likely lose more votes than he gains by signing it or not sign it and maybe lose 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.

Exactly. That this is even being considered for renewal is enough to make one want to beat knots on Rove's head. What the HELL is he thinking?!

[tpaine]

You brand yourself as a believer in the 'militia' theory of the 2nd.. -- then go on to say:

-- "Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government" ---
An outright admission that, to you, our various levels of government are not bound by "shall not be infringed"..

To ice the cake, you claim that blacks in LA who are suspected of gangsterism have no RKBA's as such laws may be "justifiable and necessary".

And to finish up you make an emotional appeal that we should allow majority rule to win on the AWB renewal, --- as when maybe a new majority gains power it would "go away", -- using the same harebrained theory..

Jsuati, my boyo, you are WAY over the edge here..
-- Thanks.. Bizarro posts like yours are alotta fun..

_______________________________________

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.

---

You stated:

-- "Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government" ---

-- An outright admission that, to you, our various levels of government are not bound by "shall not be infringed"..

Yep, even morons like you can see that, -- and that the rest of your reply is just another moronic repeat of the well refuted positions you've been spouting here for two days..

Give it up, gungrabber.. Your crediblity will never recover from this thread.. You've blown your cover & burnt your bridges..

[mrsmith]

"Do you contend that the founders intended the Constitution to be protection of 'God given' rights only from the intrusion of the federal government"

"it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty.
In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended.
These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States.
These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them. "

Absolutely. Divided powers was a linchpin of the Constitution.

I wonder what your living Constitution that means whatever you want instead of what the Founders intended will mean tomorrow?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Because it plays well to the KnowNothings of the Left. OOOh, look at the scarey gun. But don't worry we will protect you from them. Like most RAT appeals there is nothing true about it and the more intelligent of their leaders KNOW they have nothing to fear from AW. They also know that it does appeal to those without knowledge of guns. Same is true about the 50 caliber. Of course, it doesn't help matters that a couple of Islamaniac losers are driving all over the country on jihad killing citizens. With a BUSHmaster, yet.

Apparently you are not very aware of the history of the American revolution or you would know that the militias played a minimal part in it. The war was won by the Continental Army trained by Von Steuben, Washington and Hamilton. Washington considered the militias often worse than useless. Look it up don't believe me. I explained earlier what happened wrt the Soviets.

[af_vet_rr]

Exactly. That this is even being considered for renewal is enough to make one want to beat knots on Rove's head. What the HELL is he thinking?!

Rove is thinking it's an election year. He also knows that no matter how much most of us protest or say otherwise, in the end we'll still vote for Bush.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sure it does. There have been rules against certain speech since the FCC was founded. You can't go on the radio and call me a "dirty, rotten, mthrfckr." (Though you would probably get away with it if said about Bush.)

[tpaine]

Heres your 'theory', -- the one I questioned:



justshutupandtakeit wrote:
"Hyperbole is generally inappropriate, --- and a good example is equating a AWB with losing the "real America." It is just silly to think that."
-223-

___________________________________


Backwards. It is silly hyperbole to think that an AWB will contribute to restoration of a constitutional "real America."
245 tpaine

[Charles Martel]

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? ... Who will provide them haircuts?

Why, Sweeney Todd, of course:

[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course, speech is not free at the polls either. One cannot electioneer within a specified distance from the polling place. That is a restriction on free speech.

Of course, in the early days not only was that allowed but voters announced who they voted for and often the grateful candidate would take his supporter over to his barrel for a healthy snort.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't consider them irrelevant except as to the extent the courts have. I believe them to be protective of the rights of States and municipalities to pass laws (as long as they are in accord with the Constitution."

Show me evidence the courts don't consider them irrelevant.

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: Sure it does. There have been rules against certain speech since the FCC was founded. You can't go on the radio and call me a "dirty, rotten, mthrfckr." (Though you would probably get away with it if said about Bush.)

You seem to be missing the point.

If Congress cannot pass a law abridging freedom of speech, then they cannot empower the FCC to control the content of what is broadcast. We agree that they have. The point is that the restrictions are, were, and always have been unConstitutional. Only a Supreme Court which is unwilling to understand the words of the Constitution has allowed this abridgement to stand.

I am not a fan of foul language, but I am particularly unimpressed by some station's attempts to dub alternative speech into their programs. I prefer to hear what the director chose to have spoken. It is as much my right to hear it as his right to speak it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh, the myth of the boiled frog is the basis for your thinking. That makes as much sense as the other arguments posted.

Stating some facts about the militias is not denigrating the second since I don't believe it is valid only with "well regulated" militias. Not that we HAVE any of those anymore.

Reducing Bush's strength by encouraging people not to vote for him is as good a method to defeat him as any. Nor would renewing the AWB totally destroy the 2d amendment any more than it has already. Such comments are absurdly silly.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thank you.

This is the case you referenced earlier, tpaine, though somehow you managed not to understand a word of it.

[Charles Martel]

Apparently you are not very aware of the history of the American revolution or you would know that the militias played a minimal part in it. The war was won by the Continental Army trained by Von Steuben, Washington and Hamilton.

Yes, the Continental Army was the principle military force without which the British would not have been so quickly defeated. However, you seem all too eager to criticize the role of the militia. In fact, militiamen played an important part in many American victories throughout the course of the war. In "home turf" battles, the militia held a great advantage over the British. They had lived in the area all their lives and knew the landscape perfectly.

Also, the militia served as a general emergency reserve that could temporarily fill gaps for the Continental Army. When used correctly by the Continental Army generals, the militia proved to be a threat to the British in battle. At Cowpens, General Greene did just this and won a critical American victory (he used the militia as auxiliary troops around a core of regulars, if I recall my history professor correctly).

The successes of the militia were not only in the south, though. They also played an instrumental role in the pivotal American victory over General Burgoyne in New England. The New York militia was being flooded by new enlistments and the size of the force grew substantially. When the Continental Army fought the British to a standstill at the Battle of Saratoga, the militia then arrived at the battle, leaving Burgoyne with no choice but to surrender, due to the sheer size of the combined force. The outcome of Saratoga convinced the French to enter the war on the side of the Americans, a decisive factor in the outcome of the war.

But other than that, well, the militia was of little relevance. < /sarcasm >

[Dr. Zoo]

DIANE FEINSTEIN - STUPID ABOUT GUNS SHE REALLY IS A MORON! (caption on the Picture on the web)

Fienstein with her finger on the trigger waving this "assault weapon" across the crowd.

SHE REALLY IS A MORON!

As far as we know she still has this peashooter.

She and one other person in SF (one of her big Mucky-muck cronies) are allowed to have guns.

She has a pistol also.

Over Two Year Old Thread

[justshutupandtakeit]

Correct.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What I am referring to are the armed terrorist gangs which prey upon our larger cities. These are professional criminals in organized criminal enterprises.

I do not support removal of the rights of people who violate the law and learn their lesson or for convictions which have no prison time. Or for ex-husbands who have never threatened their ex-wives safety.

However, anyone convicted of crimes of great violence is a different matter.

[Jarhead_22]

You obviously don't want to talk about the Second Amendment or the President's polices on guns because that would only show just how transparent the emperor's clothes are. Instead you'd rather sidetrack the discussion to insults and black and white, with us or against us pull politics. You'd fit right in at a DNC strategy meeting.

Would you call Republicans the President's base? Why is it, if his base is so firm, that Republicans have recently been ripping the RNC a new one about spending, amnesty, CFR, etc, etc? Any ideas about that, given his rock-solid base?

You haven't said anything new in any of your posts, just repeated the same accusations and insults over and over. This has obviously been a waste of time for both of us.