Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban

senate.gov ^ | April 16, 2003 | Democrats Feinstein and Schumer

[Dan from Michigan]

If GW reauthorizes this, I will never vote Republican again. This is no idle threat. In fact, for the next election cycle, I will vote straight Democrate if there is a AW ban in place.

My problem with that is that you would then be punishing the good republicans that ARE pro-gun. If a good Republican like Mike Rogers votes against this ban, it passes anyway, and W signs it, why should he get punished by a dumb decision made at the top of the ticket?

Punish the individual, but not everyone. Hell, there may even be a freeper on the ticket. A conservative pro-gunner too for that matter. Last election, I helped one out(not even knowing he was a freeper)

[Dan from Michigan]

just hope the posters are spending the same amount of time calling their Senators and Congressman as they are writing on these threads.

My sinators are beyond worthless. One helped write the AW ban. The other talks pro-gun and votes anti.

I talked to my congressman in person though. He's solid.

[wku man]

"Hopefully, their end will come first. It's up to the people who vote these criminals in."

Yeah, but there's the rub. In our increasingly stupid, perverse and lazy society, half of the eligible voters don't even bother (2000 elections). Of that half that did, the Pubbie-Rat split was 50-50. Of those who voted for Bush, seemingly half don't seem to care one bit about our RKBA, which is the only guarantee we have against tyranny. And hell, even the RKBA crowd is apparently divided between those who are willing to ban "ugly guns", just as long as they don't come for their Winchester .30-30s and Remmington Mod 700s.

It's divide and conquer, simply put. I even think this whole "neo-con" and "paleo-con" divide, which has developed since 2000, is just a way for the Commielibs to dilute the conservative base. I once heard it said that Pubbies play chess, while the Rats play guerilla warfare. Yep, sounds like that to me.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[wku man]

My Senators, Graham and Nelson, are absolutely worthless Commielib scumbags. My Congresscritter, the RINO CW Young, is C+ NRA rated, so I'm working him hard. it may be a lost cause on him , though, because Pinellas County, FL, is a Commielib/RINO haven.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[dinodino]

I agree with this--we should not punish the good guys. I will vote for pro-2A candidates, if given the opportunity, regardless of party lines. As for GWB, he has made it abundantly clear that he is NOT a pro-2A candidate.

[Keeper of the Turf]

BTW, I LOVE your fairways. You must be good.

Thanks, man! I do my best.

[templar]

Sorry but no. Unless you can explain convincingly how such governmental restraint would not be an infringement. Shall not be infringed is a pretty strong constraint.

Sorry, but yes.

Try this experiment to get a better understanding of how things truly work. . Decide that you wish th obtain a maching gun (or RPG or whatever). Go out and buy one on the Black market (I understand they are supposedly available in some circles). You have excercized your freedom without asking the governments permission, or following any government prescribed methods, to do so. Now go downtown in NYC, LA, D.C., or any other big city and carry it around openly. You are excercizing your liberty, your right to keep and bear, and with no government regulation or consideration involved up to this point.

Do this, you will soon find the difference between liberty and freedom.

Or you could also excercize your freely made decisiion to obtain a manchine gun and follow the legally installed restraints society has placed on you. There will be absolutely nothing in thought or deed involved here. You will have lost some of your liberty, but you will still have your machine gun and be able to keep and bear it within the restraint on your liberty. You will have discovered that you still have the freedom to purchase and own one legally, but not the liberty of societal non-restraint on how and where you do it. Your right to keep and bear is still upheld and uninfringed (you have excersized it by completing this excersize), but the method in which you may exercize this right is regulated.

Again, don't argue some fantasy world stuff, just go out and do these things to get an understanding of how the real world works. BTW, I suggest you divest yorself of any personal and family responsibilities, financial obligations, etc. before attempting or accomplishing the first scenario.

[dinodino]

This would be the machine gun mfgd prior to 1986, right? Seeing as how we can't keep and bear NEW ONES legally, right? Why don't you think of this as infringement?

[dinodino]

...and to continue, templar, you expect all future generations to continue to be able to exercise their RKBA from the ever-dwindling supply of pre-'86 guns and parts? This is assuming that by then all registered Class III/NFA weapons haven't already been seized from the People.

You also don't consider the difficulties in finding someone to work on them, the difficulties in transporting and transferring to that person if you do find him, and the inability to manufacture replacement parts if they break and you can't find the originals, infringement? If not, I'd sure hate to see YOUR definition of the word.

[Shooter 2.5]

According to the last election results, we were supposed to have gained pro-gun seats in both Houses.

The problem is most laws are never overturned. The rational must be as long as the law isn't hurting anyone, it will be continued.

I think the pols have to understand if this isn't sunsetted, the anti's won't win the next election. We have to make it clear to both parties if this is passed, whoever votes for it will lose.

This has to be a pro/anti fight. It can't be a dem/Republican fight. If they vote anti, the politician will lose his election.

[templar]

Why don't you think of this as infringement?

Of course it isn't an infringement. It was insttiuted by the Republican hero Ronald Reagan. Infringements of Rights by Republicans are perfectly acceptable, as posts in this and similar political threads indicate.

seriously though, the Firearms Ownership Protection Act, which bans newly manufactured (may '86) machine guns for private ownership, is under the governments right to regulate interstate commerce. I think that any firearm, along with all of it's components and ammo, manufactured for use strictly within a State would be exempt from this. Practically, this is impossible, but it could be an interesting court challenge to prosecution for local possession of locally manufactured weapons under this law for anyone willing to risk 10 years in prison if he loses. If one could figure out how to obtain every component locally (including such things as primers, powder, etc if in any commercially available caliber).

[dinodino]

Infringement is infringement, even if it was Reagan. No, it is not acceptable, whether from GWB, Reagan, or anyone else, and whoever gave you that impression is a fool.

ICC covers the equipment used to mfg the gun, so there's no loophole there. Nice try, but the Feds don't allow it.

I'm off to Easter brunch now, gunbanner.

[Howie]

"The rest of the things you mention may come and go but my right to keep and bear arms is as dear to me as my life."

It is my "line-in-the-sand" and I believe millions of politicos do not understand or believe how deep this sentiment runs in America.

[templar]

We have to make it clear to both parties if this is passed, whoever votes for it will lose.

How would this be accomplished in practical terms? By the time this is passed (or postponed slightly) the candidates will already be in place and there wouldn't be time to find and successfully promote anyone else. I tend to take a pragmatic view of these sort of things; There won't be anyone else to vote for and they know it.

[Mr. Mojo]

The renewal won't make it out of the House.

[nanny]

which will be far worse than Bush?

Well, in theory, I agree - but you know, with this, kowtowing to the Muslims, homeland insecurity, the immigration problem, on and on - really.

What we have now on the plus side is a war - on the minus side is a bad economy, overrun with illegals and this is with encouragement of the president, being bought out by China (he made MFN), - I am still with you - but boy, it may get harder to decide which is the lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers.

By the way, I am 63 and have never voted for a Democrat - on a national level. WE in Texas, have often had to vote democratic for our locals. It has changed some.

[nanny]

I call this the Bush ex machina defense. The thesis here is that George Bush is so wise, so infinitely perspicacious, that what appears to be betrayal of gun rights is only part of a Keen Master Plan to befuddle his enemies. This isn't faith; it's hero worship.

By George (sorry!!), I think you've got it!!

Everything he has/hasn't done to protect the rights of citizens in this country has always been 'explained' by some on here. Some of the twists and turns have just really been humorous. Especially, trying to explain why passing the democrats legislation is really being a good Republican - because we stole their thunder???

[templar]

No, it is not acceptable, whether from GWB, Reagan, or anyone else, and whoever gave you that impression is a fool.

You're calling a lot of people on this thread fools. Along with significant percentages of the Republican party. Although I wouldn't use the word 'fool' I won't argue against this point.

I'm off to Easter brunch now, gunbanner.

If you're referring to me as the gunbanner (you posted to two people) you're way off base. I'm the one that suggested a possible, if highly difficult, way around one of the Republican gun bans. You're the one who argues in favor that ban being unassailable.
That hardly puts me in the category of a gunbanner.
(I don't know if the equiptment used would be a valid legal argument, no court cases I'm aware of would suggest this, and it might set new precedent regarding the reach of the interstate commerce clause. If anyone is aware of any case law that might be used in this approach by either side, I would appreciate a citation for study)

I'm off to Church now for a while. Happy Easter to all. May all of God's blessings and may Eternal life be yours. He is Risen and death is defeated.

[templar]

The renewal won't make it out of the House.

That's the hope I have. However, I've always been impressed by the regularity of some criminal syncronizing a major act of violent mayhem with the gun grabbers need for an emotional appeal to pass some piece of legislation.

Wonder if this will occur again when the AW ban renewal is being debated?

[ThirstyMan]

Good point. The military would not be the enemy of the people. In the upcoming troubles, the enemy would be political leaders, and anti-gun supporters. Their "army" would be made up of BATF agents, FBI agents and police forces.

Regular people wouldn't even know what was going on until it was halfway over.

And I suppose the Jews control the world financial markets.
Come on!
I have no idea why you think your above stated scenario is even plausible. Do you have any confidence in the will of the people as the seat of governing force here in the United States? You fear a runaway military government and see the possession of an assault rifle as security against such, don't you?
Well, this leads to some very weird scenarios, as you've explained and appears to reveal your way overinflated trust in the power of the dinky assault rifle in the hands of a self appointed do-gooder, as the power that preserves our Democracy.
Sorry I dont share this view. If anything, I view the possession of heavy-duty assault weaponry by such groups organized to "protect" our liberties, as a more likely threat to me than the BATF, the FBI or any other suspected police department.

So we have these militia types, saying they are trying to "protect" me and you by arming themselves to the hilt. They're preserving our "rights"? They don't represent me. They represent their particular pov and then resort to violence. Who appointed these angry, insecure, paranoid terroristic Timothy McVeighs? Why should I trust in them?
I don't want them getting caches of assault rifles and imagining themselves virtuous. They don't protect me nor do they represent me. No Way! I fully support our President and our Attorney General and see the preservation of our Democracy as rather seated in the godly faith of the everyday citizen.