Assault weapons ban back in play; Feinstein tries to get reluctant Congress ...

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb 9, 2004 | by Edward Epstein

[justshutupandtakeit]

Huh? What does that have to do with me? Cute but without application to the obvious point that the laws are often the result of SC approval or disapproval not YOURS or MINE.

[Double Tap]

Plus it should be obvious to all that the spate of gun control laws stopped when the GOP achieved more control of the Congress and the Presidency. I see no reason to believe it will be resumed UNLESS knuckleheads join forces with the RATS to defeat Bush.

You are right, no implication. You flat out said it in post #107.

[freeeee]

I don't believe they were ever meant as much more than a sop to the anti-Federalists.

Correct me if I've got you wrong:

The anti-federalists wanted limited enumerated powers as a condition for approving the Constitution.

The federalists didn't want limited powers, but needed anti-federalist votes for ratification. So, they put the 10th in, crossed their fingers while doing so because they never had any intention of honoring the amendment - which of course they never did.

Therefore in effect, the Constitution was a fraud, a ruse from the very beginning. Interesting theory. It explains why we are where we are today, I give you that.

One problem: The Constitution is the only source of legitimacy for the fed: it defines thier office, it delegates them authoriity from the People. If it is a fraud, our government is illegitimate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is an analogy based upon a nothing. Frogs will not stay in the pot and be boiled.

That right is justified IN the amendment by the necessity for a militia.

Protecting Freedom means far more than vetoing a AWB. Far more.

The soul and character of America are NOT tied up with an AWB or its absence. Even the gungrabbers have far more dangerous tactics to use particularly the damage cases against makers and sellers.

America's soul is far greater than its guns.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those forces have been powered by the support of the majority of the electorate. That is the point which many seem to miss or ignore. While you may consider me a "statist" I am FAR to the right of the typical voter. THAT is the problem you refuse to face. Until that is changed there is little hope to reverse this trend.

I don't think you recall rightly since the 10th was not the basis for the Court's opposition to the new deal. Nor do you apparently define socialism correctly. That involves the ownership of the means of production not government make work programs or welfare.

Drug giveaways are not socialism they are examples of the Welfare state. Socialism would be where the State seizes the drug companies (whether or not it gives the drugs away.)

[ought-six]

"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."

Some of your points make good sense, but others are the rantings of a kool-aid drinker. I agree with your above-cited comment, in principle. However, I am not about to abandon my principles in the hopes that things may improve. Bush has disappointed me on several fronts. He must earn back my vote.

[spunkets]

"That right is justified IN the amendment by the necessity for a militia."

The right is an individual right and it belongs to the people. The right does not depend on any necessity for a militia.

"Protecting Freedom means far more than vetoing a AWB. Far more."

That's right, it does. Seems you've missed most of the other aspects. Try reading Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. As for the AWB, it seems you've failed to grasp it's significance, because of a lack of understandig of the value of what is essentially a minimum defense and it's significance as established law. There's nothing worse than hearing that the law is valid, when on it's face it is not.

"America's soul is far greater than its guns."

That's right, it is.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nice mix of paranoia and conspiracy theory.

I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

If you examine the history of the RAT party you will see that it has survived egregious blunder, massive corruption and outright treason yet somehow survived. Any deflection from weakening or destroying it does not serve America.

[eskimo]

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.

Many share your concern and perhaps perceive additional enemies. What tops your list will certainly be well below the list of those who see an immediate threat to God given rights and our constitutional republic and to the means our Founding Fathers provided for their maintenance.

[spunkets]

" Socialism would be where the State seizes the drug companies"

Like I said before, only the truth counts. The State doesn't have to sieze the drug companies. All it has to do is dictate to them and demand whatever potion of their earnings and production they see fit to take. Appearances only obfuscate the underlying reality.

[mrsmith]

"exaltation by those who see them as some kind of panacea "

I have just the opposite situation: the people I have been discussing with seem to read the Second Amendment without considering the 10th's rule of construction.

You can find many rulings by the Supremes based on the 10th. I don't think they've ever made a ruling based on the Ninth. The 14th did not apply it to the states- it is still a limit only on the feds. They often threaten to apply it to the states though in their dicta.

[freeeee]

Those forces have been powered by the support of the majority of the electorate.

Then it is pure democracy and the Constitution is irrevelent save the part that describes various offices how elections are held. Hence the republic is dead.

Nor do you apparently define socialism correctly. That involves the ownership of the means of production

That would be communism. When the state takes something from one and redistributes it to another who did not earn it, it is well within the realm of socialism.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't know the policy you reference but do not support banning you for any comments I have seen.

Liberty will survive only if this nation is protected from its enemies which are also the enemies of Liberty. Bush is doing this which is why there is such a desperate hatred of him on the Left.

Bush was the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate in 2000 and is so today. THAT not the man or party is the important factor.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sorry but I don't believe you represent more than a tiny minority of voters.

I will criticize him if he signs the bill but still support him for president because I don't believe in cutting off my nose to spite my face.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No one can prove a negative not even me. Thus, it is incumbent on those who believe those amendments HAVE played the role claimed to give me some proof of that contention.

You don't know the meaning of honor.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Why do you lie? I have repeatedly stated I am not in favor of this bill.

[freeeee]

Liberty will survive only if this nation is protected from its enemies

Maybe you could give me an example of how any foreign power could take our liberty.

Bush was the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate in 2000

That's the problem. The RNC won't nominate an acceptable candidate if they are continually rewarded for doing otherwise. They will continue to nominate RINO's until they become a liability on election day.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Presumably you meant "why would I support any legislation that would infringe on our rights to arms..." I won't act like tpaine and jump down your throat with a "gotcha."

Our national security will not be compromised by a renewal of that ban but it certainly will by removing a president willing to fight our enemies and replacing him with one who won't.

There is no proposal for amnesty of illegals. We were not attacked by people who entered the country illegally at any rate.

[spunkets]

"Our national security will not be compromised by a renewal of that ban...

Who are our enemies and what would be compromised?

[justshutupandtakeit]

NOne of those atttributions to me are true. I have repeatedly stated WHAT the militia is WHO composes it and WHY the 2d was written according to the Founders.

No one has complained that I have distorted their words or tried to twist their meaning. They may say that I don't interprete certain things correctly but not that I have willfully misinterpreted their words particularly when they have corrected any misinterpretation I may have had.

YOU on the other hand just ignore what I say and yammer on with what I DIDN'T say. But being rather clueless you make the mistake of printing the words I did say thus proving to any reader that you are lying.

The posts clearly show that I never placed the militia in opposition to the people nor claimed that non-militia were not entitled to possess arms. Not that this will stop you from lying again.