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]

If it were directed at the enemies of the radical liberals I don't find that hard to believe. You have more regard for him than I.

Glad you are so easily entertained.

[tpaine]

"We went through that before."
-spunkets-

______________________________________


We've ~ALL~ went through this before.
Our boy takes a goofy position, "to provoke discussion", [as he just admitted] and then glories in taking his defense to new, ever more 'provocative' heights of trollism..

Obviously, he craves the attention, even at the expense of his credibility.
- Weird fella.
439 tpaine

_______________________________________


There is no absolute right to free speech and never has been.
539 justshutupandtakeit

---

Troll point.. "ABSOLUTE" rights are not the issue here..
Your weird views on the AWB are the issue.

[justshutupandtakeit]

False as usual. I stated that the justification given in the 2d was because "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you have a problem complain to the Founders those are their words. They were justifying it with militia needs not I.

I have repeatedly posted WHO the militia was "every able bodied (free) man."

Don't you get tired of these distortions. Can you not find things to argue with me about which I have actually SAID. Others don't have your problem.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Looks like it works too.

[tpaine]

Yet you favor signing a renewal of the AWB.. How weird.
457 tpaine

______________________________________


Where did you see that I supported such a ban? You must be getting bleary eyed again.
556

---

Troll words again.
You favor the signing of the renewal. You've supported that concept this whole thread..

[justshutupandtakeit]

Moby's intent was to do what YOU are doing - undermine Bush.
MY intent is just the opposite - to support Bush.

How can you attack me for supporting Bush and claim that I am doing what Moby wants- undermine him. That stretch of logic is wild even for a loose cannon.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What is obvious to you should be that I am more concerned with other issues even if I don't like some.

My concerns are that Bush be re-elected so as to frustrate the goals of the enemies of America. National security concerns top my list. Then the ability to appoint more conservative judges.

None of that is important to those willing to make an idol out of guns.

No one will convince the idolators.

The rest is just bullshiite unworthy of comment.

[ExSoldier]

"Jeb Bush would do very little different than his brother. "

You're DEAD wrong on that one pal. Jeb is FAR more conservative than his brother. How do I know? He's a personal family friend of the first name kind. I've known him from long before he was the Governor.

I will vote my conscience as I always do. I am sick and tired of the spending, gun control prattle and pandering to the left. I'm REALLY sick of the immigration debacle that has gone on for DECADES, but which this President has only worsened in his pandering. I'm beginning to wonder if the leaf doesn't fall far from the tree of his CFR/Globalist/UN loving daddy. Bush 41 was almost as damaging to the country as Clinton. And don't get me wrong, as of right now, I'm still voting for GWB in Nov. Holding my nose, but voting. So far. But if he signs or pushes the AWB even as a rider to critical legislation. It's over.

And you know what? Maybe this country needs a smack across the chops again by having the country slide near the edge or beyond under a RAT administration. The RATS are stupid enough to do something really foolish which can still be stopped before it really get's moving, yet the attempt itself, as seen by MR and Mrs "Average American," might be enough to finish them off for all time. They really are verging on the ragged edge of oblivion. Bush would have pushed them off that ledge a long time ago, except for his own blunders to the left. My tinfoil hat just heats up and the little propeller spins like mad when I think and wonder if these really are "blunders" or some sort of plan orchestrated by "Daddy" to advance a NWO agenda. Yeah, I know that Bush 43 PI$$ED off the UN in several major ways this term, but there might be a long term backlash that is very beneficial to that organization.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nope. Status quo means to keep the RAT/GOP ratio the same. I want to see as many RATS eliminated from power.
Intelligent planners would agree. Then after the Left is weakened so that it is not a threat we turn on the GOP and make it into a real conservative party. Then its destruction or conversion can be done without threat from the Left.

But I realize such thought is far too complex for you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't think it an overstatement at all. There has always been a sizeable clique here which has opposed him from day one and they are some of those threatening him again.

Nor do I think it to be political expediency which would cause Bush to sign this bill. I think it is because he does believe that vetos should not be used for much of anything but for legislation that is outrageously unConstitutional. If this law has been held as constitutional already then it doesn't fall into that catagory.

I don't really believe he thinks he will gain many votes in allowing it to stand and would be happy to see him veto it.

Certainly his enemies will not be converted.

Can't say that I agree with that thinking but it appears to be operative.

[freeeee]

Moby's intent was to do what YOU are doing - undermine Bush. MY intent is just the opposite - to support Bush.

I think this statement cuts to the core of the issue.

You want to support Bush.

Others want to support liberty and the Constitution. They don't care about one man or his career.

If supporting Bush upholds liberty, they'll support Bush. Otherwise they won't. It's entirely up to Bush whether he wants further the cause of liberty, and earn their support.

Of course now comes "do you want Kerry/Hillary???"

Remember, some don't care who gets to wear the big hat. All they care for is liberty. If a rat administration leads to obstuction/gridlock, and that somewhat helps liberty, the answer is evident. If a rat win teaches the RNC a lesson and further down the road that leads to RNC nominating candidates that help liberty, again the answer is evident.

And yes, I'm fully aware of this site's new policy on what I just said. They can ban me if they like.

[looscnnn]

"Moby's intent was to do what YOU are doing - undermine Bush.
MY intent is just the opposite - to support Bush."

Are you really? Supporting Bush's stance that he will sign the AWB is not supporting Bush. If he signs it, that will cost him the election. So if you do support Bush, you would not defend signing it and would do all you could to make sure he does not.

[looscnnn]

"National security concerns top my list."

If that was so, then you would not support any legislation that would infringe on our rights to arms or any amnesty of illegals.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What Super power will side with the American militias? Which one will supply them with training and Stingers? Uh, none.

Maybe you are unaware that the French were beaten in Vietnam because the North had an army which was supplied with weapons by the U.S.A. Half the armaments readied for an army of 1 million to invade Japan was diverted to Ho Chi Minh's forces after WWII. The other half was sent to Korea.

Nor was the Viet Cong a militia. These were paramilitary forces armed and supplied from the North backed up by the North Vietnamese Army. Most of the "Viet Cong" were former refugees from the North introduced into the South by American policy during the 50s, they weren't Tonkinese or native to the South.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh this is petulance at its worse.

[tpaine]

You are simply belied by your own words again. You deny your own comment, quoted below, written at # 279..
Thus.. -- You claim "the people " in the Second Amendment, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, --- are only comprised of:

#279 -- "the members of the militia which was stated as a justification for the 2d". -- #279

Obviously the people referenced in the 2nd are the 'People of the United States'.
-- It will be interesting to see you dig yourself out of your own "trick question" hole.
Two bits you won't even try to explain yourself on that howler..
-308-

False as usual. I stated that the justification given in the 2d was because "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nope, -- you said that 'the people' referenced only applied to militia.

If you have a problem complain to the Founders those are their words. They were justifying it with militia needs not I. I have repeatedly posted WHO the militia was "every able bodied (free) man."

And, you thereby attempted to justify the AWB renewal as only the milita supposedly have a right to assault weapons..

Don't you get tired of these distortions. Can you not find things to argue with me about which I have actually SAID.
Others don't have your problem.

How weird.. Many "others" here have been complaining of your distortions of our BOR's for this whole thread..

[justshutupandtakeit]

Now maybe you are beginning to understand my choice of a screen name.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I never discourage "speaking up" just the adoption or proposal of self-defeating tactics which endanger the nation's security.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Huh, you believe that the weapons covered by the AWB are really assault weapons. Most of the experts on arms around here don't.

[justshutupandtakeit]

So far your intention is right but you have to wait until the greater danger is destroyed before attacking the lesser danger.

My plan is also to destroy the RAT party for many reasons not just 2d amendment ones. Then turn on the GOP and force it to the right.

HOwever the plan won't work unless the FIRST step is carried through. There has been progress in this regard and it is weakened but now people like you threaten the whole program by moving on the GOP before it is appropriate and allow the RATS to get back up off the mat.