Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Assault Weapons Is a Redundant Term
ChronWatch.com ^ | 14 May 2003 | Doc Farmer

Posted on 05/13/2003 9:35:13 PM PDT by DocFarmer

"Assault Weapons Is a Redundant Term"

Posted by Doc Farmer Wednesday, May 14, 2003

President George W. Bush president@whitehouse.gov The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C.

May 14, 2003

Dear Mr. President,

First of all, I want to thank you for your service to our nation in these perilous times. You've been an effective leader, an inspiration to America, and a friend to the Military.

However, with great respect, I must disagree with you on your support of the renewal of the "Assault" weapons ban.

The ban itself is unconstitutional, sir. It violates the second amendment. The key term here is ''shall not be infringed.'' It would also violate the spirit of the fourth amendment, which provides ''the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'' of an item already guaranteed to be protected under the second amendment. It can also be argued that the ninth amendment may come into play here, sir, in that although the second amendment doesn't specifically denote assault weapons, that lack does not deny or disparage the right of people to own them. From a historical perspective, during the Revolutionary War, the long musket could indeed be viewed as an assault weapon.

Besides, "assault" weapons is a redundant term. If you're using a gun, it's assaulting something. Your ears, if you're in a closed room. The paper target at the end of the range. The felon who's trying to harm you and your family.

"Assault" weapons legislation is a bit vague anyway, don't you think? It covers semi-automatics, and guns that ''look'' mean. That's a rather subjective term, though. Does that mean, by extension, that I can be arrested for ''looking at you in a funny way''?

A little aside for you to illustrate. Some years back, my mom got a nice Christmas present from Dad--a Beretta 9mm. Dad has always been a hopeless romantic, don'tchaknow. Mom's only problem: the grips only came in black and white. She wanted grips in her favorite color--lilac.

Mom was trying to color-coordinate her choice of firearm!

Now, she had to settle with white. But had she chosen black, that might have ''looked mean.'' (If she'd gotten lilac, it would have ''looked embarrassing,'' but that's another story.) And since Berettas are nominally semi-automatic, it might be viewed or categorized as an assault weapon.

My point is that all weapons look threatening in some form or other. That's kind of the point, isn't it? If Mom points a lilac 9mm at a bad guy, he wouldn't be as intimidated. Quite frankly, he'd probably be laughing too hard to be intimidated.

The anti-gun nuts (see also: lib/dem/soc/commies) have been lying to the American people about the threat of "assault" weapons, Mr. President. The only threat is when they're in the hands of the bad guys. This law doesn't stop that. No law or laws would. Crooks aren't going to worry about obeying the law. They spend their time making sure they break the law. That's sort of the short definition of ''crook,'' after all. But the law does keep these firearms out of the hands of the law-abiding. They have every right to own them. For sport, for hunting, for personal protection. The government has no right to infringe on their lawful ownership of these weapons.

There is a thin edge of the wedge situation here, sir. Look at England. Year after year, they kept eroding the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms. Now, they're virtually banned.

And their crime rate is higher in London than in New York.

Just so you know, I don't own a gun. Nor do I belong to the National Rifle Association. But should the day come that I decide to, I'd like the constitution, and the laws governed by that constitution, to at least offer me the choice.

Please, Mr. President, rethink your position on the support of the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. It does not warrant extension. It does not warrant permanent implementation. The Assault Weapons Ban should be defeated forthwith.

Many thanks,

Doc Farmer Doha, Qatar

(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; War on Terror; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: ak47; amendment; assault; banglist; bush; constitution; crime; dubya; george; gun; president; protect; rifle; uzi; weapon

1 posted on 05/13/2003 9:35:14 PM PDT by DocFarmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DocFarmer
Let us know if you get a reply.
2 posted on 05/13/2003 10:25:45 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Assault weapon ban sunset *bang
3 posted on 05/13/2003 10:43:59 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocFarmer
Excellent, I just hope that the president gets a chance to read it.

I seriously doubt that the guys that run the website would take a 2nd amendment letter very seriously, probably half if not more are from the Clinton administration.

I do hope it gets to him somehow though.
4 posted on 05/13/2003 10:57:33 PM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocFarmer
"Assault weapons"?

Let's all start calling them what they really are:

Homeland Defense Weapons!

5 posted on 05/14/2003 9:53:03 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocFarmer
Besides, "assault" weapons is a redundant term.

"Assault Weapon" is just a PC term to imply a danger that does not exist.

6 posted on 05/14/2003 9:55:13 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocFarmer
BTW, e-mailing ANYone is just too easy to do, and is too easy to ignore.

Call the White House Comment Line, (202) 456-1111
don't press 1 - wait for a live operator.
Tie the lines up!
7 posted on 05/14/2003 9:55:17 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocFarmer
Actually, it is a politically inspired pejoritive term with no basis in reality, a legal fiction of the liberal socialist, designed to create a false sense of dread in the mind of anyone hearing it.
It is cynically crafted to deprive law abideing Americans of their second amendmant rights, an open ended attack as more arms are added by redefining a term that is pure fraud to begin with!

"Semi-automatic assault weapon" is nonsense, it is self contradictory, akin to a "Genuine simulation", or an "Authentic reproduction".

"Semi-Automatic" = One shot per pull of the trigger.
The GENUINE definition of an "Assault weapon" is a SELECTIVE FIRE (capable of fully automatic fireing) weapon of intermediate caliber.

The current "AW Ban" covers guns of every caliber and gauge, from .22 to .50BMG.

Properly, pistol caliber "AW's" would be Submachine guns, firearms using intermediate caliber rounds would be Assault Rifles, full power weapons would be Battle rifles, or light and heavy machine guns.

All machine guns in the U.S. have been unconstitutionally "controlled", registered, and subject to a punitive $200 transfer tax since 1934.

The AW Ban is a blight on our countries landscape, an embarassment left over from the Klinton regime, and overdue to be removed.
Unconstitutional law is farce, is has no legitimacy.
Thus Bush must work for it's elimination if he is truly committed to "bringing honesty and integrity" back to the White House!
He can do so without betraying his campaign pledge to "support all existing laws", he need only comprehend that "unconstitutional" = VOID!
8 posted on 05/14/2003 8:45:04 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
"The GENUINE definition of an "Assault weapon" is a SELECTIVE FIRE (capable of fully automatic firing) weapon of intermediate caliber."

Awwwwwwwww SHUCKS! You beat me to it!

9 posted on 05/14/2003 9:07:38 PM PDT by ExSoldier (My OTHER auto is a .45!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DocFarmer
Here, let me demonstrate how my pet rock can assume the
attack/assault position---
Stands with left arm extended forward, right hand (holding rock) cocked back over shoulder---ready to assault!
They can have my rock when they pry my cold...
10 posted on 05/14/2003 9:45:36 PM PDT by BlueDragon (iftheuniverse is a hologram,maybe our realm of universe really isjustadustballinagiants'shoebox!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocFarmer
Well, I wrote too, but signing unconstitutional legislation is not a problem with Bush. He prefers to let other people handle the heavy work and take the political risks instead of using his veto power and doing the job he was elected to do...for instance, like the courts have had to do with campaign finance reform.

Isn't Bush a member of the Republican Party, which is constantly complaining that the courts are making laws instead of just interpreting the laws?

Like we ask the gun grabbers "Just what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?", just what part of "I do solemnly swear...I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." don't you understand, Mr. Bush?
11 posted on 05/14/2003 9:57:03 PM PDT by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson