Posted on 05/19/2003 7:12:28 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
The second-highest ranking Republican in the House believes renewal of a decade-old ban on so-called "assault weapons" is in doubt, primarily because he doesn't think the votes are there to extend it.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
It's not a qaulifier, it's a reason, an explanation of why the "right of the people" is not to be infringed. In no way does it limit the right. In the minds of those who authored and ratified the second amendment, the militia and the people were the same thing anyway, just wearing a different "hat" if you will.
Besides it's not "required" it's "necessary". Necessary for/to what? "to the security of a *free* state."
That's exactly what is likley to happen. How likely I don't really know, but such things have happened before.
Such political "horse trading" is one reason why the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, where insisted upon by many state Consitutional ratification conventions. Most didn't hold out for a BoR, but did insist that one be passed and approved the Constitution on the promise that one would be passed. And it was. The only part of what would become the second amendment that was controversial was a provision that would have protected people who were religious pacifists from being compeled to bear arms. The provision was dropped in Congress.
Before going further, I'd like to point out that I'm a RKBA absolutist - I believe that you, I and every other non-mentally-defective, non-drug addicted person over the age of 16 has the right to own ANYTHING that they want. Yeah, that includes convicted felons - if they are harmless enough to be released into society after paying their debts, they get all rights restored; if not, let 'em rot in jail. My RKBA covers not just "ugly" semi-autos (not my term - beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but full-auto submachineguns and machineguns, grenades, RPGs, 20mm cannon, etc. I recoil at the thought and the reality that I have had rights denied to me that my grandfathers took for granted (though, regrettably, never exercised), and that my children are likely to have less ability to exercise their rights than I have had.
That being said (and meant)...we live in a political society. In order to get something passed, or defeated, you must first be elected. As President, you not only have to be elected, but to have sufficient support in Congress for your goals in order to accomplish them. Sometimes, especially when dealing with a very uneducated populace (civics-wise), you can't make principled stands in public. Personally, I'd love to see Bush get on TV and say that a renewal of the AWB will only pass over his dead body - but get real, it ain't gonna happen. However, the bill is likely to die anyway. What do you care about more, form or substance? Because if Bush makes some extreme statements, the press will go bananas and the soccer moms will all have bad hair days, resulting in lots of RINOs deserting Bush. Bush would likely lose in '04, and even if he survived, his party would get creamed.
But watch the strategery going on here: Instead of pounding his chest for naught (or worse), Bush has his assistants make him sound like he'll sign a bill - disarming (some) Demo criticism of him. He puts the burden on the Congressional Republicans, knowing that the bill will never get to his desk-even most Dems don't want to vote on this, esp. the ones from the South and West (big cities and Kali excepted). More brilliant, his apparent waffling emboldens stupid Dems like Feinswine and McCarthy, putting in front of the public once again the spector of total gun control/confiscation under Democrapic leadership. End result: no AWB renewal, Bush covers his political rear end and that of his party, and the Dems are made to look like that extremists that they are.
Anyway, that's my theory. Do I agree with the apparent strategy, or like having my most basic right used as a plaything by politicians interested in nothing but power? Hell, no! Do I think less of Bush as a result - yes, some. But remember, it is the results that count. Either the ban sunsets or not (and, if not, something worse and permanent is likely to be on the books). If it does, we win, and have rolled back a federal gun control law for the first time in history. We can then go on the offensive, since the tide will have turned - Dems will be running from the gun issue like rats from a sinking ship (pun intended). Rather than bashing Bush (and I'm no "Bushbot"), work as a concerned citizen ought to - write letters (real ones, not email that gets trashed), call and/or meet with your reps to get this atrocity off the books. Name calling, finger pointing, etc. does nothing constructive toward our goal of getting rid of the AWB and then moving on to other unconstitutional legislation.
I agree wholeheartedly with Joe Brower's earlier comment:
Fact if the matter is, I don't trust anyone in politics -- it's just too dirty a business. Us citizens have to bust our bananas to get the best of the lot elected, and then stand on their shoulders to ensure that they behave themselves. Nothing new.
GW should be smart enough to know that no matter what he does that may have some placating effect on the left, it's a false hope. They will hate him no matter what he does, so he's much better off making sure that he continues to please his base. As we well remember, the 11/2000 elections were a very, very close thing.
Bush would still be in Texas if it hadn't been for 2nd Amendment supporters. He and Rove shouldn't need to be constantly reminded of the fact.
10-4 on your points! Excellent comments. Political reality IS the factor some gun folks are overlooking. We want George W. re-elected plus this absurd law to sunset. Being a purist won't get the job done.
Yes they were, although details differed from state to state. However, their guns were not under the governor's control. Or not necessarily. They could be and were sometimes issued guns owned by the state or by the local government, but just as often they owned the guns themselves, and like modern day Israelies and Swiss, took the arms home with them when not on militia duty.
This is not strictly true, although it would be the first time a federal gun control law was completely done away with. The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, rolled back some of the worst provisions of the '68 Gun Control Act, plus many of the BATF "regulations" that flowed from the GCA and other federal gun control laws, along with negating many court rulings and even affected enforcement of some state laws. From "THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE" by David T. Hardy:
FOPA effectively overrules six decisions of the United States Supreme Court, [8] (p.586)moots what would have become a seventh,[9] and negates perhaps one-third of the total caselaw construing the Gun Control (p.587)Act of 1968.[10] FOPA's impact, however, is not limited to the Gun Control Act, nor even to federal statutes. By expressly exempting interstate transportation of firearms from the reach of many state firearm laws,[11] it affects state proceedings as well. A detailed comprehension of FOPA is thus essential to an understanding of both federal and state firearm laws.(p.588)
See the link for the footnotes, which are longer than the passage itself. :)
I think the key to our, meaning the people on these threads, disagreements are about whether we consider this a winning strategy, for sunset of the AWB or the for the relection of the President, or both. I consider it an ill advised strategy on both counts. It alienates much of the Presidents base, while also giving political "cover" to that subset of Republicans who are anti arms rights.
In any event I expect that renewal will not be enacted, if it's enacted at all, as a stand alone measure, but rather attached to some Senate originated "must pass" bill. The Senate is much less pro-RKBA than the House, which is why I think it will be a Senate bill. The original AWB was passed as part of a hugh omibus "crime" bill, the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". Of course the AWB had nothing to do with "crime", other than creating a whole bunch of new ones.
If political reality dictates leaders must compromise our unalienable rights, then politics has to change for our unalienable rights can not.
But watch the strategery going on here: Instead of pounding his chest for naught (or worse), Bush has his assistants make him sound like he'll sign a bill - disarming (some) Demo criticism of him. He puts the burden on the Congressional Republicans, knowing that the bill will never get to his desk-even most Dems don't want to vote on this, esp. the ones from the South and West (big cities and Kali excepted).
Why the hell would anyone trust a leader who's obvious strategy is to compromise our unalienable rights for political profit as long as he is able to blame it on someone else?
Sigh. Please learn to read English, or at least go to the effort of looking up the Constitutional amendment you're trying to quote. There is no "requirement" in the Second amendment, other than an order to government not to infringe upon a right retained by the people. Just because it has an explanatory clause that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (and it is; you might have a free state without a militia, i.e., armed populace, but that freedom certainly won't be secure) doesn't mean that that explanation modifies the restriction on government in any way.
If you can't be bothered to learn how to parse simple English, at least go to the effort of looking up words you don't understand in a dictionary before you try to use them. If you had done so, you would realize that "well-regulated" means "properly functioning" (such as a "well-regulated clock" being one that keeps proper time) and "militia" means the body of people at arms. When you say that a "well-regulated militia being required", all you are stating is that the people need to have guns and know how to use them. That certainly isn't a "qualifier" on the right, even if you (and the more ignorant of your readers) might believe such nonsense to be the case.
Knee-jerk Republicans and Democrats - these 2 groups will vote for their party regardless of how the AWB debate is resolved. These groups combined are perhaps 40% of voters.
Those who don't give a damn about the gun issue, or who have it so far down their radar screen as to make it irrelevant (my guess: 55% of voters).
The remaining 5% are composed of rabidly pro- or anti-gunners. I think it obvious that the former group is much larger, thereby making it foolish for any national politician to upset them. Besides, the latter group is probably so left-of-center anyway that no matter how Bush acts they will vote for his opponent (not to mention that the opponent will almost certainly have better credentials as a true anti-gunner).
Net: opposing the RKBA is a loser issue for Bush. He will gain perhaps 10,000 votes from the antis, but lose hundreds of thousands or millions of rabid pro-RKBA types. He is already losing a few, but I would hope that they'd watch the results rather than the BS games that are being played now.
I don't like games being played with my rights, and I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY REPUBLICAN in 2004 if the AWB, in any form and for any duration, is renewed. Period.
I agree - in theory. But we don't live in the theoretical world. You must take reality as it is now and, if you want it to change, work within the existing system to do so. Radical change in a short period almost never occurs, short of revolutions (which are a bit bloody for most people's taste). However, we can take a lesson from our anti-gun opponents - incrementalize them to death. First get rid of the AWB, by hook or by crook. Then move on to the next odious piece of legislation, and so on. I, personally, don't care if the process is pretty, I only want results. It is kind of like my taste in guns - I prefer butt-ugly, dependable, accurate, hard-hitting firearms that will last forever over hand-engraved, expensive stuff that you don't even want to take out of the box or off of the mantel.
Why the hell would anyone trust a leader who's obvious strategy is to compromise our unalienable rights for political profit as long as he is able to blame it on someone else?
Who said that I trusted Bush on this issue? I though that the quote at the end of my post would have settled that issue. Just in case: NO, I don't trust Bush or the Republicans on this issue - especially given how the Dems seem to constantly outmaneuver them on almost every issue. OTOH, I trust that Bush and Co. can count votes, money and volunteers - and if people like you and me act like proper aggrieved voting citizens and WRITE LETTERS - LOTS OF THEM, then they will do the right thing (even if they don't know or care that it is right). Again, I don't care if Bush and the Republicans stand up for the RKBA like Heston has done on occasion, I only care about results. Because many a pol has stood up like that and then stabbed us in the back - it is only results that count.
I think that those who vote on this issue alone are a small minority, perhaps 2%-5% of the electorate, depending on how many are P.O.'d on Election Day and decide to hunt during the day, then sit at home cursing the results rather than having voted.
I have found that the lamestream multicultural media propagates that crap and it is just that..it is a full load.
Agreed. However, most people don't know or care. That's why the likes of CNN and the VPC are able to convince stupid soccer moms that the AWB banned machine guns, rather than some semi-autos. They are so willfully ignorant that they don't even KNOW what a semi-auto is.
We are a majority in this country but you are going to get the Demorat agenda at 55 miles an hour with the dems or at 40 miles an hour with the reps.
I agree that most people believe that Americans have a right to own guns. They disagree on which types of guns, mainly due to ignorance and false media propaganda. However, most people don't vote on this issue. People put their pockets first, except in times of war or imminent war. Remember - bread and circuses. An old Roman pol (whose name escapes me at the moment) postulated that any amount of substantive failure wouldn't matter as long as the population was fed and entertained - and it worked for Rome for hundreds of years. Well, we're fed so well that we have a huge obesity problem in this country. As for entertainment - radio, TV, music videos, video games, computer games, the Internet... need I go on? Most people don't CARE about the RKBA. Do your best to get a few to care, and maybe they can convert a few, and so on - but get over the illusion that most people will EVER vote solely on it - the most we can hope for is about 5%, and we need it every election. Do that, and both parties will stop the BS, fast - many elections are decided by less than that (remember 2000?), and one thing that pols know how to do very well is count votes. Send Barbara Boxer, McCarthy or Schumer to retirement in 2004, and you'll send a message.
You need to vote, especially at the Congressional level for Constitutionalists.
If you mean third party folk, I think that you are wrong. My credo is to vote as you want to in the primaries, and to vote for the lesser of two evils in the general. Enough hammering in the primaries and the lukewarm RKBA folk in the Republican Party will either lose or get religion. Same for rural Dems. Voting third party in the general election does as much good as pi$$ing into the wind.
With all due respect, I think that you and others of a similar mindset need to re-assess how you participate in the political process. Barring a literal revolution or civil war (and no sane person wants one), change must come about from within the existing political process. Realistically, the R's and D's will control politics for the remainder of our lives - deal with the reality, and work for change knowing what it is. Doing otherwise marks you (generic you, not Ravenstar) as an easily-dismissed political kook, and accomplishes none of your goals.
Ditto. I merely laid out what I think is happening. Knowing the past, we may well get screwed AGAIN. My only realistic hope is that Bush and the Republican Party know how many votes they will lose, both in 2004 and permanently, if that happens. That, and the fact that many rural Dems don't want to touch gun control with a 5-mile length of pipe.
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.