Posted on 08/09/2004 7:10:34 PM PDT by wagglebee
September 14, the day after the "assault weapon ban" expires is when my check goes in the mail to President Bush.
I'm cautiously optimistic.
Hence, my amusement at the political game being practiced.
We'll see. I certainly have more confidence in the House than in the Senate.
I do know that should this ban finally die, we'll have a real cause for celebration that night as the clock strikes 12:01 A.M. :-D
Of course, these are the core tenants of conservatism, Along with the right to keep & bear arms. Which means that if President Bush were endorsing a wholesale abolishment of firearms ownership, your argument would be above reproach.
However I don't really think that restricting ownership of certain firearms endangers the second amendment. Any more than having a cop search my knapsack during a time of terrorism endangers the fourth amendment.
This is why I am a conservative, not an ACLU libertarian. A conservative recognizes countervailing claims of the common good. The libertarian gives highest legitimacy to individual rights, and scarcely acknowledges anything else.
"Trying to see the magic text hiiden in "shall not be infringed"
I guess freedom of speech means I can spread stories about you, and slander you, and when you complain I'll ask you to see the magic text hidden in "freedom of speech".
NOTHING in "shall not be infringed" says ANYTHING about all weapons being available to all people. Nothing.
Preventing certain kinds of weapons from going on the market is not infringing on your right to bear arms. Zilch, zero, zip.
I'm not for the ban, but I'm not one of these "the sky is falling" types...unless I missed how people's right to bear arms has been so horribly infringed while this ban was on.
Name ONE person who couldn't get a gun because of this ban. Just one. I wanna see the person who can prove that they wanted to arm themself, but couldn't because of this ban.
Or do you think that not being able to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater means we have no free speech?
I am an NRA member and I receive the magazine " First Freedom " monthly. Read this months issue. Believe me, the NRA will endorse President Bush. They have been absolutely hammering Kerry. They will NOT endorse Kerry,true, but they may not endorse Bush either. There may not be a Presidential endorsement at all this year.
Jack
"What you are denying is that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from deciding what arms are suitable for the people to keep and bear. I guess then that you would grant the government the power to do what Feinstein wants, and ban all the other semi-automatic rifles that you point out give one the same "firepower".
I guess I should feel my rights have been trampled because I don't own an Uzi, but I don't.
Yeah, yeah, yeah -- and for every one of you "the NRA is thuggish because it doesn't bend" folks, there's a "the NRA is a sell-out because it compromises away too much" person. Maybe they're doing something right if they're p**sing off people from both directions.
Look at the ban--it's NOT unconstitutional because nowhere in the second ammendment does it say "you can't ban any kind of gun" or "anyone has the RIGHT to a particular gun",
Since it would take too long to educate you out of your ignorance concerning the Second Amendment (although I'm tempted to just ask, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' are you having trouble with"), let's leave the Second Amendment aside for just a moment, and I'll ask you the question that I've asked countless "gun control is not unconstitutional" liberals over the years -- without once ever getting a reply:
Q: Why did it take a constitutional amendment to empower the federal government to regulate/ban the private possession/use of alcohol during Prohibition, but not (you claim) to regulate/ban the private possession/use of firearms?Also note that the same arguments have been proferred in favor of both alcohol Prohibition and gun bans (too many people use them irresponsibly, no one really "needs" them, responsible for many deaths/tragedies, etc. etc.)
I await your response.
so even though I am 100% against the ban,
No, apparently you're not.
the very reason I'm against it is the reason why I appreciate it's meaningless--it's a tiny percentage of the weapons sold, and one can basically get the same firepower easily.
Its danger is as a precedent -- if this stands, then there's nothing stopping Congress from banning any other firearms by model or feature as well, and pointing to the "assault weapon" ban as justification.
For an excellent speech on the problems and dangers with the "it's just a few guns being banned" attitude, read Principled Firearms Policy: Ethics, Logic, and Conflict-Resolution, by Preston Covey. It starts about halfway down that web page.
If you gang wanna call Bush a RINO on such a ridiculously minor issue, go right ahead and enjoy the Kerry presidency.
Unconstitutional gun bans are not a "minor issue". Read the following, if you want to understand why: Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?.
No, no more than not being able to fire randomly through a crowd means I have no right to keep and bear arms -- both are reckless, immediately dangerous acts in and of themselves.
Now would you like to put forth an argument that is *not* a straw man?
Because you don't *own* one, or because you are *prohibited* from owning one even if you chose to? There is a difference, in case you hadn't noticed.
At what point, exactly, would you decide that the right to keep and bear arms *had* been infringed? When handguns were outlawed? Shotguns? Scoped rifles? Centerfire rifles?
Or are you one of those "the right is not infringed as long as the serfs are still allowed to own only single-shot .22 target rifles" people?
Infringed is infringed. And the moment you allow the camel to have his nose under the flap of the tent, you'll find yourself with the entire camel before long and no right to complain, since you had no problem with him coming in at the start.
How about the limits on political speech imposed by the campaign finance reform law? Is *that* an infringement of free speech? Or is it okay since you can still complain to your neighbor, just as long as you don't do it in a way that the general public can hear?
Then you have much to learn. And it also shatters the Tenth Amendment.
Any more than having a cop search my knapsack during a time of terrorism endangers the fourth amendment. This is why I am a conservative, not an ACLU libertarian. A conservative recognizes countervailing claims of the common good.
Okay, I'll bite -- what exactly are the "countervailing claims of the common good" in the existence, or continuance, of the "assault weapon" ban?
Everyone has the right to keep and bear either a muzzle loading smoothbore musket, or similar squirrel rifle, but not both. It's in the Constitution!
No that's a communitarian
September 14 makes total sense. It also is also best to keep this not to soon and not too late.
There will be a hissy fit on the day the AWB sunsets.
Then with an NRA endorsement the media will have caniption fits.
If the NRA does not endorse Bush, I will most certainly withdraw from the NRA.
In this case, a "non-endorsement" of Bush would be heralded by the leftist media as a Kerry positive.
Nah the NRA is a pussycat. The members (and many gunowners who are not members because of that domestic feline nature) are another matter entirely.
If Bush gets himself manuevered into signing the AWB ban extension, the NRA should just sit out the Presidential election. If Kerry wins, maybe the frog will get hot quickly enough to jump out of the pot.
It's 60 days. Just a hint at the credibility of the article.
Technically that's correct usage. AR-15 is the Colt designation for the family of weapons, semi and full auto alike. The Air Force bought some AR-15s before the Army type designated the weapon as the M-16.
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.