Posted on 04/17/2003 12:53:55 AM PDT by Uncle Bill
Edited on 04/17/2003 1:47:21 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
When, pray tell, is it not an approprite to stand up for the oath you took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? When an election hangs in the balance?
"...but there are other outstanding issues relating to personal freedoms out there. The fight to set the Second Ammendment in stone is not the only one."
But it's the only one which guarantees we have the means to fight off the tyrants who would strip us of the rest of our rights.
"There is that disgraceful McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law."
I agree 100%. CFR is the reason I'm not voting for Bush again. His position on the AWB just reaffirms my decision.
"At some point you have focus your energies on what is attainable."
And some times you have to stand your ground, draw a line, dare your opponents to cross it, then fight tooth and nail, because if you don't you're gonna lose another big chunk of your freedom. This is one of them. In the last ten years, the Pubbie Party has been one cave-in debacle after another. We can't afford to cave yet again when it comes to our constitutional rights. The RINOs have already caved (or actively participated) when it comes to the First and Fourth Amendments, but in a worst case scenario, we can survive these infringements. Why? Because of the Second Amendment. As long as we are armed, we are not a slave state, but a state filled with free citizens. But to whittle away at the RKBA, a little here and a little there, is to ensure the day will come when we have nothing but double-barrelled shotguns and .22 target pistols with which to fight back tyranny. All the "attainable" stuff that you think we should focus our energies on won't mean a thing then, because we will be tryly powerless.
"Doing away with the Assault Weapon's Ban can best be done after Bush gets a second term."
No it can't. The AWB was given a ten-year lifespan. If it's renewed, it will get at least another ten years, if it's not made permanent, IMHO. It sunsets in September of '04, which means it has to be dealt with before the election. The time is now for the president to state emphatically that he will veto any extension, thereby bolstering any wavering Pubbies in the House and Senate, and encouraging them to stay the course. If he were to do so, I believe there might actually be a chance for the AWB to die in Congress. But Bush has to grow a spine and be ready to fight the media and the Rats if he chooses to do the right thing. He can't just "go along to get along", and his New Tone may be jeopardized. He may have to get dirt under his fingernails, and actually fight for something. And with the exception of the war, fighting's something he apparently isn't too fond of.
Sorry about the lack of civility in my previous post.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Yeah, and truly powerless, too. Man, sometimes I just slay myself.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
My father, who had been an NRA member since the late 1920's, dropped his membership and support of the NRA when it shifted it's emphasis from firearms training and responsible ownership and started pursuing a more activist agenda.
The NRA's defense of "cop killer" bullets was the last straw for him. He no longer saw the NRA as representative of the mainstream firearms owner (hunters and collectors) but more of a political platform for an emerging enthusiast of a more militant nature.
The NRA's defense of "cop killer" bullets was the last straw for him. He no longer saw the NRA as representative of the mainstream firearms owner (hunters and collectors) but more of a political platform for an emerging enthusiast of a more militant nature.
The NRA was merely reacting to the changing political reality; a more activist agenda was needed in order to preserve all the rest of the NRA's activities. Had there been no "gun lobby" to speak of through the latter half of the 20th century, the 2nd Amendment would be little more than a memory. Yes, it is unfortunate that the NRA had to change with the times. However, only a few short years ago I heard Bill Clinton call on the NRA to abandon their activism and return to their older, "traditional" activities. That pretty much confirmed that the NRA had done the right thing; if Clinton didn't like it, it must've been the right call.
Your dad is only one of many who thought the NRA was wrong on the "cop killer bullet" issue; but the "Anti-cop-killer bullet" legislation that was proposed was written very loosely and would have resulted in the banning of all high-power rifle bullets.
BTW, that is the same issue that earned Dick Cheney the undying hatred of Sarah Brady and company. Cheney voted against the "cop killer bullet" ban because he knew it was a bad piece of legislation that would've reached far beyond specialized pistol bullets designed to pierce Kevlar. I do hope that Cheney is advising the President on the AW ban; certainly he knows it's an ill-conceived law.
But why even have it become law in the first place? Why not explain to the American people what's wrong with the bill, then with no pomp and circumstance, veto that sucker so fast John McCommie's head would still be spining a year after it happened?
Bush had a list of six features that, if included in a CFR bill, would cause him to whip out the veto pen. McCommie called his bluff, if memory serves me correctly, and left two of those features in his bill. Bush signed it. Sheesh...he not only backed down from what he said he'd do, but he also signed an unconstitutional bill into law to where it now has to go to the courts (and what if the SCOTUS doesn't strike it down, hmmm?), and finally, he gave John McCommie a victory!!!!
"Irregardless of the life-span of the AWB, Bush can at any time use and executive order to rescind it."
I don't believe that's true, bro. After a bill has become law, the only way to overturn it is to have the SCOTUS declare it unconstitutional. After all, for a bill to become law, the president has to place his signature on it, and it wouldn't make any sense at all for a president to give it his blessing, then turn around and strike it down with an EO.
If that was all a president had to do in order to rescind a law, Klinton would have had a field day. If that was the case, President Reagan would've issued an EO striking down Roe vs. Wade. No, I'm pretty sure it's a balance of powers thing, the purpose of which is to give Americans one more recourse (the Judicial Branch) against an "unreasonable" new law. That's one of the reasons so many conservatives let out a nationwide howl when Paul "The Forehead" Begala said, of Klinton's EOs, "stroke of the pen, law of the land...kinda cool." No, it's not kinda cool. It's not our way, and not our system. Bush and the RINOs will have to deal with the AWB before the election, and I don't think there's enough backbone in DC to do the right thing and let it sunset.
In fact, if memory again serves me correctly, if an EO is already entered into the Congressional Record, a president can't even overturn it with his own EO without Congress approving it. This was the hurdle Bush encountered when he first took office, and was looking at overturning some of Klinton's EOs. For some reason (no backbone? the New Tone?), he decided it would be too much of a hassle to get the Pubbies in Congress on his side, so he just gave up, leaving Klinton's EOs in place. Truly inspiring leadership...
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Now, we're now getting into the vagaries of the Constitution, because if I remember correctly, judicial review is a power that the SCOTUS just assumed it had in Marbury vs. Madison (I hope I'm right, else my old Constitutional Law prof, Dr. Droddy, will find me and kick my a**!). So if there are any legal eagle FReepers who could help me/us out here, I'd sho' nuff appreciate it.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
They're old pictures you stuck on these articles to give the appearance of a Bush/Clinton conspiracy, because you can't scare people into turning on Bush without lying...visually or literally.
You've been doing the same thing here for years and sometimes we like to let the new people here know what and who you are.
I would be very disappointed if Bush signed an AWB into law, it might be enough to get me to sit out the election... or maybe not. If Bush does something awesome, like taking out Mugabe, or just gets Iraq running smoothly, I think I would still vote for him. If he turns a blind eye to Palestinian terror, and pretends the Palestinian leadership is complying with his roadmap when they are clearly not, that would make me angry enough not to vote for him.
In fact, I might even vote for someone like Lieberman. Think about it: if my sitting out the election costs Bush 1 vote, my voting for a Democrat has twice as much of an effect on him.
Or not. California is almost certain to go to the Democratic, and in the off chance Bush wins California, he's certain to win the presidency anyway.
If Bush pisses me off, I won't go to the polls for him, I'll probably just sit at home and let the local Republican candidates suffer. If Bush is doing good things, I'll get off my butt and vote for him, and local GOPers.
If Bush signs the AWB, he will be the one taking the heat in the next election, and Democrat candidates across the country will benefit as local Republican candidates suffer, even if Bush wins reelection. The Republicans who care about the AWB are disproportionately members of the activist base--without them, there's no lawn signs, no bumper stickers, etc. It would be extremely foolish for Bush to sign the thing, I don't think he will go through with it, it would just have too high a cost.
But what kind of game does one hunt with one of these ? Are they useful and practical to keep under one's bed for use in case an intruder arrives?:
Senate Bill 23 Assault Weapon Characteristics
Effective January 1, 2000, Senate Bill 23, Statutes of 1999, establishes new criteria for defining assault weapons based on generic characteristics. This bill allows and requires persons who own/possess firearms that fall under the new "assault weapon" definition to register those firearms with the Department of Justice during the one-year period between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000. Effective January 1, 2000, this bill adds Penal Code Section 12276.1 to the Penal Code as follows.
12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
- (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
- (B) A thumbhole stock.
- (C) A folding or telescoping stock.
- (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
- (E) A flash suppressor.
- (F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:- (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
- (B) A second handgrip.
- (C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
- (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:- (A) A folding or telescoping stock.
- (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
- (8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(b) "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.
(c) The following definitions shall apply under this section:- (1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
- (2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
- (3) "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.
(d) This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.
That's the same mentality that keeps the vast majority of blacks in slavery to the Democratic Party. The Dems know that no matter what they do the black population will vote for them, so they trample on them at every available opportunity. It's the same with the gun lobby (or conservatives in general) and the GOP. They know that you'll vote for them no matter what they do so (because after all who else will you turn to?) and they trample on your gun and other rights on a regular basis. This assault weapons ban is a case en pointe. You've got Repubs like Bush voting for it too because he knows you'll vote for him anyway.
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.