1 2 3 ) Posted on 02/09/2004 9:03:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill doesn't relieve anyone from real liability suits. Just protects against frivilous ones. This idiots got his head up his a$$.
Not at all. The anti-gun media has an agenda, and this is merely some handhanded lying-on-purpose.
Amen Big Mack, Amen!!! I could not have said it any better myself. What the hardcore party hacks have forgotten is that it is the health of the Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution that is of primary importance here. Not which group of liars is in charge politically. If the Constitution has become meaningless, then so has the Union. To me, the resolution of the illegal AWB is the single most important issue. With Republicans in control of the House, Senate and the Oval Office, there is no excuse for the continuation of the AWB. NONE AT ALL. This is the line that I have drawn in the sand
Couldn't agree more with the both of you. I refuse to be stabbed in the back on this one. I've written many emails to the White House flatly stating that GWB will loose my vote the instant he signs this, if it makes it that far.
Sure, JFK-wannabee, I really believe that people who just finished successfully fighting a bloody and vicious war against the most powerful nation on earth (as well as many of their own Loyalist countrymen) in order to win their freedom (a war effort which, just coincidentally was ignited because of an attempt to seize the arms of private citizens, and which was successfully largely because of the widespread ownership of then-advanced firearms in the hands of the general populace), and who were engaged in crafting the blueprint for a government that was supposed to "secure the blessings of liberty" for their countrymen for many generations, were so silly that they wrote the 2nd Amendment in order to protect the rights of a bunch of gap-toothed, beer-swilling, pot-bellied, cousin-marrying rednecks to kill Bambi's and Donald's relatives - NOT!!!!
If Kerry, et al were so freaking sensitive to gun owners' rights, they'd at least entertain the notion that the 2nd Amendment has not got a single thing to do with hunting or target shooting. Until they at least acknowledge that this view is a legitimate one - without necessarily agreeing with it - then no one who is the least bit serious about the rights of current and future gun owners will believe a thing they say. Just in case Kerry is completely ignorant of history (and he well may be, regarding gun rights), the hunting argument was used by several successive kings of England in the 1600's to ban weaponry - the "only" legitimate use for guns was represented to be for hunting, and then there were progressively stricter and wider bans on "killing the King's animals" and, viola, there was suddenly no need for guns - mainly among those opposed to the King, just coincidentally. This wasn't the only time this tactic was used to disarm a populace, but THIS time we are wise to it. If Kerry and the Dems want ANY support from gun owners, they had better understand this and rework/eliminate gun laws that threaten the rights of gun owners. I'm not holding my breath for that.
"Every bill dealing with guns is uphill because of the gun lobby. That's no surprise,'' she said.
That's because gun owners have finally caught on to the incrementalist approach of anti-gun fanatics. We "get it," which is to say, we understand what your final goal is - total abridgement of the right of the average person to defend self, family and liberty, just like in the U.K. today...and we're not going to be suckered by your con game anymore.
The 10-year-old law was painstakingly hammered out to get enough votes for passage. The guns it covered had to meet a so-called two-characteristic test, meaning the weapon could be banned if it had two features from a long list that included items such as automatic ammunition clips, a pistol grip, a barrel shroud or flash suppressor.
To get around the ban, manufacturers simply changed the guns to remove one of the characteristics on the list and kept on producing them.
They wrote a law, and said that if you crossed a certain line that you were in violation of it. Suddenly, it is somehow bad to move right up to that line, without stepping over it. What horseshiite that is!!! It is like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 55, and then complaining that people are driving 55.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has decided "it's not good enough just to renew a law with loopholes that have caused the death of law enforcement officers and helped those who want to commit terrorism,"
First, this is the typical stalking horse that anti-gunners use: that criminals using "assault weapons" are killing hundreds or more of police/innocent citizens, or that they are the "weapon of choice" for criminals and/or terrorists. It is utter BS - the figures prove that rifles, let alone semi-autos, and further let alone the "ugly" semi-autos that so scare these idiots, are in general are used very infrequently in crimes. If they truly wanted to control crime, they'd either ban ALL guns (fat chance of getting away with that) or execute everyone found guilty of 1st degree murder and sexual abuse of any child (since criminals in those 2 catagories who are intentionally or unintentionally released from prison are guilty of many more murders than those even remotely attributable to "assault weapons"). Second, if criminals are doing it, then why does it make any sense to limit the rights of those who aren't criminals? What's next, car control because some irresponsible, self-centered morons are violating the law by getting wasted, getting into their cars and then causing fatal accidents? Message to anti-gunners: Criminals who are intent upon violating laws against murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. ARE NOT GOING TO OBEY LAWS AGAINST OWNING OR USING CERTAIN TYPES OF FIREARMS - DUUUUHHHHHH! That's why they are called CRIMINALS, you f'ing morons!
Oh, and terrorists DON'T GET GUNS AT GUN SHOWS OR LEGALLY THROUGH LICENSED DEALERS - if they can buy full autos without any paperwork for $50 or less in any Mideast or Southeast European bazaar, they sure aren't going to buy semi-autos for $600 or more in a papered transaction - DUUUUHHHHH again, bozos!
Finally, of course, all of the arguments regarding the use or non-use of certain catagories of guns in crime or terrorism completely neglect the most important point - that the law in question is utterly unconstitutional - period! The failure by the antis to even acknowledge this possibility, and their simultaneous push for even more limits on the rights of existing or potential gun owners is actually a good thing - it is like a bucket of ice water thrown into the faces of sleeping gun owners (mostly the "hunting" or "sportsman" type of owner) that the antis are after their guns ALSO. DiFi is at least intelligent enough to understand this - which makes her even more dangerous to our liberties.
More apt.
Then it seems W has a decision to make:
He can continue Clinton's gun ban - or -
He can sacrifice his desire to do so for the well being of the country in the face of the Islamic threat.
It's all up to him. But he won't be having his cake and eating it too.
the Whacko Brigade
Are you a member of the Million Mom March, or do you just play one on the internet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.