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

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

[ApesForEvolution]

As you gather information, you are neglecting the only information that matters. The Constitution, which blood has been spilled for repeatedly to keep.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Thank you. ; )

[Right_in_Virginia]

What an assinine argument on your way to wiping your back end with the Constitution...

Let me guess...charm school graduate?

[philman_36]

Like I said before, the place to kill this legislation is in the House, where 2nd Amendment issues actually can make or break elctions.
And you know damned good and well that 2nd Amendment issues can make or break Presidential elections too.
2000 showed that all too well or else all of those Dem voters wouldn't have left Gore standing in the breeze with his wet finger and perplexed expression.
You keep trying to pass this off onto the House when they are the very ones who voted for it in the first place! How is anyone supposed to make them rescind something they've already passed. Nothing gets rescinded anymore. To have a sunset provision in that ban was a miracle to start with. It was simply placation!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Just trying to understand...

[ApesForEvolution]

Yeah, conservatives have been totally duped.

Get a little and lose the rest.

If the Republican Party can't put forward candidates that will defend the Constitution, I'm done holding my nose to vote for whichever candidate simply has a GOP brand.

Unlike Britain and Australia, our rights will be defended at a time and place of our choosing by the true patriots left in this nation, of which there are millions.

[annyokie]

I am neglecting nothing. I guess I need to speak to someone other than yourself about this issue since all you seem to do is insult me.

[ThirstyMan]

We simply can not play fast and loose with our freedoms,

So any restriction on your "freedom" is bad?
I think your idea of freedom is actually unrestricted license and that is not a Constitutional guarantee.
As Belial pointed out when do we allow the general public to own "shoulder-held SAM launchers"?
Nevermind that these firearms can bring down an airliner.
Heh! We need our "freedoms"![translated unrestricted license]
I have a hard time attributing that as a Founding Father principle.

[annyokie]

Thanks! I am learning a lot here.

[ApesForEvolution]

No, that would make me a politician who cares more about power than about defending our freedoms.

[templar]

I want a Republican president, not just one elected as a Republican.

You have a Republican president.

I want a genuinely Conservative president.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It's not about the right to carry a radid fire assault weapon. (I don't and I wouldn't.)

Interesting. Are you saying it would be wrong to walk around carrying such a weapon?

[ApesForEvolution]

If telling you the truth insults you, then so be it. I'm not here to make friends or win arguments, but to point to the truth. Do with it what you will.

[wku man]

"Why is it that the 2nd gets hacked and whittled but if someone went after the 1st, there would be civil HELL to pay?"

Just remember, bro, the 1st Amendment has been hacked already, by our current president, who said he didn't like CFR, but signed it anyway!!!. CFR is nothing short of an unconstitutional infringement on the 1st, and (to the chagrin of those who would like to cast me as a "one issue voter") the reason Bush will not get my vote again. This crap about him supporting the AWB just reaffirms my decision.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[philman_36]

And before you start...I don't want to see another Democrat elected into the Presidency. I'd rather see a Constitution Party member or a Libertarian elected before that ever happens again.
I'd prefer a Republican who understands and upholds the Constitution. I'd prefer a Republican who understands that a Republican is supposed to support a republican form of government. I'd prefer a Republican who acknowledges that rights are inherent in the people and that government is our servant and not our master.
I'll sit home again and trust my Electors and take some, but not much, solice in that.

[templar]

Someone give me the arguement please

It generaly boils down to the 'infringed' part of 'shall not be infringed'. The question becomes ones of rights vs. privelege or permission.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Unfreaking believable !!

[weaponeer]

It's not about the right to carry a radid fire assault weapon. (I don't and I wouldn't.)

Why don't and why wouldn't you?

Because it's not necessary or practical. I carry one of my 4 Glocks or several other handguns when I need or want to carry concealed. One of several tactical shotguns for home defense. I have a pre-ban AR-15 re-configured into a CAR/M4 configuration that I use for our monthly 3-gun tactical matches. But CARRY them? I think not.

How about you?

[CurlyDave]

Possibly this endorsement will cause our President to re-consider his support for opression of the American People.

[IronJack]

The President can fend off demo and media attacks that he is a hostage to the gun lobby in an election year and Congressmen can say they protected the 2nd amendment in the 2004 election.

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.