CNN with John Zarella hit piece "Gun Battle" on AW Ban

CNN broadcast 1:30AM EST | 5/15/2003 | John Zarella

[Beck_isright]

What vanity? This should be placed under NYT bovine scattologies. CNN is to electronic media as the NYT is to training your puppy.

[JSteff]

""this issue is WAY ABOVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT" because "no one has the right to own a weapon designed to kill", only for "hunting birds"."

He is just wrong. The founders had very little discussion about "hunting birds" but lots of discussion about keeping the citizenry armed to protect themselves against government.

The constitution says nothing about anyone in government having any right to decide why a law abiding citizen wants a gun. The citizen can have one just because he wants it.

Period

[JSteff]

"If AWB2 is passed, I will vote against Bush, and I hope he loses. I'd rather deal with Clinton/Schumer than lying Clymers who are selling our freedom one slice at a time."

And how will electing a known gun grabber be any better? All you will do is to assist in the faster control of our guns.

Makes no sense to me.

[Sender]

Maybe in Sheriff Jenne's Broward County Florida they have so much gang violence and drug fighting that he has come to the point where he feels that LE is endangered by any sort of privately-owned weapon. That's his opinion.

But even so, he's outright lying about which weapons are affected by the AW ban, and he's outright lying about the intent of the Second Amendment being only about bird hunting. And he's clearly trying to scare up a frenzy among the soccer moms. Now I love soccer moms, but they don't know the difference between a banned Norinco sporter and a converted machine gun. We don't need them getting their education from dishonest jerks with an agenda.

[Travis McGee]

I would rather get on with CW2 while I am young enough to fight.

I will not vote for traitorous RINOs who will sell my freedom in pieces, until my freedom is gone.

[biblewonk]

Just think, millions of viewers were "amen-ing" every word.

[HangFire]

Now I love soccer moms, but they (most) don't know the difference between a banned Norinco sporter and a converted machine gun. We don't need them getting their education from dishonest jerks with an agenda.

My point exactly!

[Howie]

[Ancesthntr]

""this issue is WAY ABOVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT" because "no one has the right to own a weapon designed to kill", only for "hunting birds"."

He is just wrong. The founders had very little discussion about "hunting birds" but lots of discussion about keeping the citizenry armed to protect themselves against government.

The constitution says nothing about anyone in government having any right to decide why a law abiding citizen wants a gun. The citizen can have one just because he wants it.

Period.

If that moron can even read, I'll bet that he'd be shocked out of his socks to see what Madison wrote in Federalist #46. To conclude that the same people who had (less than 10 years before) just completed a vicious and bloody revolt against the most powerful central government in the world (which began, BTW, with an effort by that same powerful central government to implement gun control at Lexington and Concord), would waste any ink on modifying the most precious document in American history to protect the "right" to hunt is the most shallow, ill-considered, uninformed, anti-American opinion that one could imagine. Which explains why so many anti-gunners hold exactly that view.

It should also be interesting to see whether the USSC has the cojones to take on the Silveira case. A constitutionally proper decision there would nullify every gun control law on the books.

[Travis McGee]

It's going to be interesting to watch this play out in the political process.

I just hope no jokers are dealt, such as a well-timed super Columbine to panic the knock-kneed RINOs.

[Bogey78O]

It makes sense if you'd rather see an open revolt rather than incrementalism.