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.

[TigersEye]

I don't see where I was wrong or disrespectful ...

You're in good company on this thread.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Opinions on constitutionality are irrelevant unless they are from the USSC.

Assaults on truth and decency are almost a RAT monopoly.

[Charles Martel]

I'd far far FAR rather have the entire bill die than any new bans being added, or the old one going on.

Absolutely. I thought that a "gun manufacturers' liability shield" bill passing the Senate was a long shot anyway.

[mrsmith]

A living Constitution is what we have when the Constitution is not interpreted as the Founders did.

That's just a fact- it should not offend you.

[TigersEye]

Opinions on constitutionality are irrelevant unless they are from the USSC.

Opinions on constitutionality morality are irrelevant unless they are from the USSC God.

So I guess we should all 'justshutupandtakeit.'

[TigersEye]

... it should not offend you.

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

Right.

[Charles Martel]

A small faction of self-important jocks has to brought back into line before their lust for glory perverts the game entirely.

"Lust for glory"? WTF you talkin' about, Willis?

[spunkets]

"Oh, the myth of the boiled frog is the basis for your thinking."

It is not a myth, it is an analogy. It is also an appropriate analogy for the particular considerations here.

" 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."

Forget the militias. The 2nd refers to an individual right regardless.

"Reducing Bush's strength by encouraging people not to vote for him is as good a method to defeat him as any."

You are missing the relevant points altogether. The ball's in his hands, not ours. He can either act to assure the bill never hits his desk, or ally with the grabbers. The existence of Freedom does not depend on Bush, and that's what's important-the preservation of Freedom. Either Bush preserves and protects Freedom, or he doesn't.

"Nor would renewing the AWB totally destroy the 2d amendment any more than it has already."

You've presented chit-chat from various sources regarding war, armies, militias and various conflicts. The fact is that the outcome of war is determined by the actions taken during the conflict. Analyzing it and coming to conclusions regarding outcomes before hand is basically worthless.

The 2nd refers to the people's right to defend themselves against tyrany, amongst other evils. So, it is not the govm'ts place to determine what measures are to be allowed regarding the exercise of that right. Certainly this situation here involves the preservation of the bare minimum required for effective defense of Freedom and the meaning and reality of the 2nd.

Have you done anything yet to encourage the Administration, Senate, or House to junk the bill? That's important. Folks aren't going to put up with an all power fed that consumes most of what folks earn and gves it away for their own purposes, continues to dictate rules out the yin/yang and encourages and supports States + locals to do the same thing.

What's at stake here is the soul and character of the US and the very existence of Freedom.

[spunkets]

"Opinions on constitutionality are irrelevant unless they are from the USSC. "

All that matters is the truth. Everything else is BS, regardless of where it comes from.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nope, an understanding of the concept of federalism leads to that conclusion. Since there were clear distinctions of the roles of the different levels of government within it. Only the fedgov could legislate matters which concerned the WHOLE. The other levels of government were restricted to matters only affecting those levels.

Most of the definitive constitutional case say nothing of the sort. Marshall's explanations of the Constitution are incredible demonstrations of logic, knowledge of the document and legal reasonings. They are masterpieces written only with the meaning of the constitution in mind.

Anything which is defined in a negative way is vague. I asked you about rights and you referenced the libertarian philosophy which is fine but hardly precise enough for operative actions. More specifically the powers in the 10th
are powers to legislate by states ONLY when they do not conflict with the laws passed under the Constitution. They have NO power to do ANYTHING which affects the Union as a whole. Hamilton says in Federalist 80 "...the peace of the WHOLE ought not to be left at the disposal of a PART."

Madison's take on federalism changed for the worse after Jefferson returned to the country. Before that he was as nationalist as Hamilton and as Federalist as Washington.

The demise of the 9th and 10th has not been the result of any "side" winning and certainly has nothing to do with any "socialistic" victory. Anyone could have challenged laws which presumably contravened them yet they were rarely done on that basis. Was EVERYONE pimps for the Nanny state? I don't think so. But such a view goes well with one in a tiny minority.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Plastic guns don't exist? But, but I saw one in "Line of Fire."

A real student of history should know (after a certain degree of study) that pursuing policies designed to do the opposite of one's intentions is not smart. AND that removing Bush would be a disaster for the nation.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Also used in the constitution is "person," "persons," "citizens," Had the 2d read "...the right of citizens to..."
could have been an alternative wording but wasn't chosen.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nope, implies nothing of the sort.

I tried to join up in 1966 but was rejected for physical reasons. :^(

Not that that is relevant to any of this discussion.

[justshutupandtakeit]

NOpe, what I AM saying is summed up in my tag line. At this moment in history the most important task for patriotic Americans is to re-elect Bush so that he can pursue taking the fight to our enemies rather than sitting around waiting for attacks then doing nothing about them.

As it was far more important to re-elect Lincoln during the Civil War than to "punish" him for transgressing (or alledgely transgressing) parts of the Constitution.

Additional republicans added to Congress (esp. Senate) will do far more to protect gun rights than a suicidal snit carried out against Bush under the pretense of principle.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Where did you see that I supported such a ban? You must be getting bleary eyed again.

[freeeee]

The demise of the 9th and 10th has not been the result of any "side" winning

It is the result of the forces of big government winning over the forces of limited government. Let's just agree to disagree on this point.

and certainly has nothing to do with any "socialistic" victory.

If I recall correctly, FDR stacked SCOTUS in an effort to further erode the 10th as it stood in his way. He succeeded, and the New Deal was enacted. If you don't think the New Deal was socialist, further discussion will be useless.

Also, consider this example: At the federal level, pick of any given socialistic policy. There are many, but lets pick free prescription drugs. If the 10th is upheld, we look to Article I, Section 8 for a complete list of Congress' powers and authority. Prescription drugs aren't listed there, so the federal government lacks authority for such a program. Thus upholding the 10th will have prevented a socialistic policy from taking hold.

In this example it is clearly demonstrated the lack of enumerated powers as mandated by the 10th is an absolute necessity for socialism to take hold at the federal level.

If you can dispute that, I'd like to hear it.

[tpaine]

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


The reason the 9th and 10th have been ignored is because they are so vague as to be useless in legal terms.
They were a sop to the anti-federalists and no one expected that they would have any value other than to mollify opposition to the constitution.
362 posted on 02/10/2004 1:22:06 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit


______________________________________


Busted again in clearly stating the 9/10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless.
378 tpaine

______________________________________



justshutupandtakeit wrote:

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

---

You can't show me the evidence that courts DO consider them irrelevant..

-- Yet here you are, clearly stating that the 9th & 10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless.
You've displayed your contempt for our constitutions BOR's in so doing, and now you're trying to weasel word your way out of your original "sop" statement, quoted just above.

-- You have no honor..

[tpaine]

You're getting delusionary.
Prove that I somehow 'misunderstood' B v B.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

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

The reason the 9th and 10th have been ignored is because they are so vague as to be useless in legal terms.
They were a sop to the anti-federalists and no one expected that they would have any value other than to mollify opposition to the constitution.
362 posted on 02/10/2004 1:22:06 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

______________________________________


Busted again in clearly stating the 9/10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless
-tpaine-

_____________________________________


Where is any evidence that those amendments have played any significant role in our legal history?
I say they have not and if you want to dispute that then stop playing games and do so.

---

You have clearly stated the 9th & 10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless.. And that:

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

You first statement contradicts your other.