Skip to comments.Lugar pushes to renew assault weapons ban
Posted on 01/17/2011 9:52:12 PM PST by WilliamHouston
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) this weekend called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
Lugar is the first GOP senator to call for increased gun control following the Tucson tragedy that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. But Lugar, who supported the initial 10-year-long assault weapons ban when it passed in 1994, said he's not optimistic about the chances for passing gun control legislation this Congress.
I believe it should be, but I recognize the fact that the politics domestically in our country with regard to this are on a different track altogether, Lugar told Bloomberg Televisions Al Hunt Jan. 14. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
This will go exactly nowhere.
Gotta love the idea of banning guns because of what they look like.....
Someone needs to tell Lugar that assault weapons are already illegal without an FFL
Does IN have any Tea Partiers to knock this hayseed out? He is insufferable. This stiff should be easy to eliminate.
Lugar has passed his sell by date. He currently holds the position of “Republican most likely to appear on Meet the Press to say how bad all the other Republicans are”, a coveted position that John McCain held until having the audacity to run against the media’s annointed candidate, Obama. Clearly Lindsey Graham is jealous of Lugar’s success and would very much like this job (along with the elite acceptance that goes along with it.)
Congress are public servants. Let's have some random drug testing of Congress. That might provide some answers.
Lugar is a racist. You cant ban guns because they are black!
It will go nowhere. Lugar knows this. Everyone knows this. Yet he feels the need to give the finger to his constituents again.
How many times has it been now?
YOU REPUBICS ARE ON NOTICE... IF YOU ENTERTAIN THIS IDIOCY... IT IS WAR. WE WILL TEA PARTY LIKE IT IS 1776!!!!
LOOGIE NEEDS TO BE EXCOMMUNICATED... THIS IS AN UNFORGIVABLE BREECH.
NEVER... “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. No one on FR should EVER agree to any Rights being murdered!!!!!!!!!!!
GOD bless you brother!
I defended him but I can’t no longer defend him.
Old fart is like specter, thinks he owns the seat, 35 years, time for retirement.
When they devise a law requiring criminals to follow the law and convince them to do so, come back and talk to us.
Perhaps a well-qualified, Second Amendment-friendly challenger in the GOP primary election is in order.
With a name like “Lugar” he should know not to shoot his mouth off to often.
Shouldn’t he be concentrating on getting Obamacare repealed as he was elected to do and swore an oath to the Constitution?
Weren’t the dems talking about banning the use of gun terminology? How dare they point a Luger at us!
They’ll need to find someone to unseat Lugar in the GOP primary. Its going to be tough.
From an accomplished master of the English language, asked to answer questions as if he was on the witness stand:
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
The word "since". It is to be taken for granted.
The Founders knew that. But the geniuses of today don't know that. They're so much more enlightened and sophisticated than those old dead white guys. They're even smarter than the guys who built the pyramids 4500 years ago.
Yup. Checked the pantry and decided a couple G18 mags and a G20 15rd would be a few good additions.
Actually, the best translation would be more like “Since a *well-equipped* militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be abridged”.
The original meaning of “regulated” circa the turn of the 18th/19th century meant having a standardized kit issue, and had nothing to do with “regulations” as we currently understand them.
In other words, one of the words of the amendment *has* changed meaning. Actually, militia has to some extent as well, since nowadays it generally means a paramilitary organization dedicated to internal national defense, whereas back when the amendment was written, it was generally understood to mean something akin to civilian “reserves” drawn voluntarily from the general populace.
Another dark evil senile back stabber in the fine tradition of John McCaine. He has been in the Senate for far too long. Five or six terms by now
No doubt his young liberal staffers are doing most of the work now
You’re right, and I’ve heard that before. The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were so much more precise in their language than we are now. They considered each word.
He always was.
"Guess what, you Lefty Loonie...you're in the Militia, whether you like it or not!"
Can you imagine the screaming and crying? And if the S ever really hits the fan, they'll get called.
The debate had been over whether or not there should be a standing army, and if so how large it should be.
The colonies had been occupied by the English Army.
Without regulating a standing Army, sooner or later it will dominate the domestic scene--we see this worldwide--and become the government.
The security of a free state (a free country) depends on keeping its military subservient to the population, not the other way around, and to those ends, the posession of arms by the populace would guarantee that the nation's own armed forces, no matter how good militarily, would be less formidable than the entire (armed) populace.
Therein lies the aspect of control, or 'regulation' of the Militia.
Therefore, the Founders sought to maintain the balance of power in favor of the people by guaranteeing the right of the people to (keep and bear) arms not be infringed.
Keep in mind that freedom depends on govenrment being by the consent of the governed, of government being a servant of its citizens and not a master--a concept alien to most of the world, both then and now.
There is a discussion of this balance of arms in the Federalist papers in the discussion of whether or not there should be a standing (professional) Federal army. The discussion of the people bearing arns didn't have anything to do with hunting or even self defense, but the defense of the Republic against being taken over by rogue forces within, and the most likely usurpation of power would utilize the power of the Republic's own standing army against its own citizens.
“FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS”!
Charge that windmill, lugie - Ye-heah!
So, how's Lugar going to do that? Go Left, old fart. Talk the Dem's into not running a candidate and set up for an independent run?
Lugar is an elitist Rhodes Scholar type. Those guys are a threat.
Lugar no longer is a representative of the people, he believes he is entitled elite.
He wants to make history,not just influence it.
There is an article on www.indystar.com today,the left in Indiana are praising Lugar like mad, they really do love him and that alone should be enough to primary him,but Indiana politics are a mess........well not a mess heck last time the dems didn't even run against Lugar, it was as if the reps and dems decided Lugar could have a seat and Bayh could have a seat.
They didn't cancel each other out Bayh actually acted as the senior senator, lugar followed along as his poodle.
I believe most militia service in early America was compulsory.
“Actually, militia has to some extent as well, since nowadays it generally means a paramilitary organization dedicated to internal national defense, whereas back when the amendment was written, it was generally understood to mean something akin to civilian reserves drawn voluntarily from the general populace.”
And when citizens form ‘militia’ groups they are demonized.
Even if he isn’t unseated in the primary, if he has to blow through many millions of dollars like McCain did to defend the seat, I’ll get a small amount of satisfaction out of that.