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

Skip to comments.

Will House take up renewal of gun ban?
World Net Daily ^ | May 19, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

Posted on 05/19/2003 7:12:28 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-70 last
To: Ancesthntr
we win, and have rolled back a federal gun control law for the first time in history.

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. :)

51 posted on 05/20/2003 6:43:51 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
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).

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.

52 posted on 05/20/2003 7:00:33 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
That being said (and meant)...we live in a political society. In order to get something passed, or defeated, you must first be elected.

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?

53 posted on 05/20/2003 8:02:42 PM PDT by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
I think you think RKBA'ers are a minority. I have found that the lamestream multicultural media propagates that crap and it is just that..it is a full load. 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. You need to vote, especially at the Congressional level for Constitutionalists.

Ravenstar
54 posted on 05/20/2003 8:34:15 PM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
I hope you're right, and it works out that way. I have my doubts, as you know. I'll be glad to be wrong.
55 posted on 05/20/2003 8:49:30 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
"What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand!" Please don't forget the qualifier - A well regulated militia being required.

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.

56 posted on 05/20/2003 10:34:51 PM PDT by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I agree that it is, ultimately, an ill-conceived strategy. The electorate can be divided into 5 groups, only 2 of whom matter for these purposes:

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.

57 posted on 05/20/2003 11:22:19 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: eskimo
If political reality dictates leaders must compromise our unalienable rights, then politics has to change for our unalienable rights can not.

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.

58 posted on 05/20/2003 11:33:51 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
I think you think RKBA'ers are a minority.

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.

59 posted on 05/20/2003 11:55:36 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I hope you're right, and it works out that way. I have my doubts, as you know. I'll be glad to be wrong.

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.

60 posted on 05/20/2003 11:58:55 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
It is sad my friend but you are part and parcel of the problem. You will continue to vote demonican the rest of your life because they make you believe that you will get democrat policies if you don't but why can't you see the writing on the wall you are getting democrat policies anyway and the republicrats and demonicans, same party really, are laughing all the way to power because they have you and a majority of the voters buffaloed. Vote your beliefs not your fears!

Ravenstar
61 posted on 05/21/2003 6:07:13 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
You said "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."

No they won't by your own admission to me in post 59 you will continue to vote your fears instead of your convictions.

Ravenstar
62 posted on 05/21/2003 6:11:05 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
Well said.
63 posted on 05/21/2003 7:02:03 AM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Regarding your post #46 -- well said. I concur with your description of our current state of affairs, as well as your analysis of the politicking going on currently. It sucks, it's reality, and it's up to us to deal with it effectively. When has this ever been not so?


64 posted on 05/21/2003 7:13:43 AM PDT by Joe Brower (http://www.joebrower.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
I said: "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."

You said: "No they won't by your own admission to me in post 59 you will continue to vote your fears instead of your convictions."

Take a look at the end of my post #57 - in this case, I will NOT be voting Republican if the AWB is renewed in any form for any time. Letting a pol know that he/she will lose your vote is a good way to get their attention, and if enough people do it, pols change their votes - look at all of the Southern Dems that won't touch gun control now. When I responded to you, I did so in general philosophical terms. Please look at my last post to you again, and tell me if I'm really wrong - and by that I mean, when has a strategy like yours EVER gotten a true pro-gun candidate elected? Here's the most important part of what I wrote:

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.

Get it? Once the primaries are over, the die is cast for one or the other party, period (a couple of insignificant races here and there excepted). Ross Perot, with literally billions of dollars at his disposal and an angry electorate, got only a few percent of the nationwide vote (and NO, I'm not holding him up as a pro-gunner - he's the opposite - but as the only 3rd party candidate in recent times to have had even a slight chance to do anything). He won not a single state, and didn't get any more than 20% in any state. He did, however, get Bill Clinton elected by siphoning off Bush I votes. Bush I was no pro-gunner, but I doubt that the AWB would be law now if he had been elected - Clinton had to push, HARD, to win by only 2 votes in the House.

Again, my belief is that you do what you can within a major party in the primaries and at the grass roots. Over time you, and people of like mind on ANY particular issue (guns, abortion, etc.) WILL have an effect. But voting 3rd party in November does NOTHING. You might as well stay home. I used to believe as you do, but I figured out that it never helps. In fact, I'm one of the idiots who helped get Clinton elected (it didn't actually matter in my state, but I am speaking of the attitude).

There's a time to fight like Hell - when you have some chance of success. Charging a machine gun nest is a recipe for getting killed - ask the French of WW1. When you can't possibly get exactly what you want, you stick your finger in the dike and try to slow down the oncoming tide, knowing that someday in the not-too-distant future you will have a shot at getting exactly what you want, or at least closer to it. We get that chance every 2 years, and in between we have to try to hold back the tide. In an ideal world, at least one of the major parties would actually stand for something - but, in case you hadn't noticed, we don't live in that world.

Imagaine if you, and other really hardcore people who vote like you, actually got involved with one particular party (or one candidate of either party - some actually stand up to their own party on occasion) - we, all gun owners, would have that much greater influence, and might actually get stuff done. There are about 80 million gun owners. Half probably don't vote, and most of those don't vote their guns (just think about the jerks with the over-unders who don't care if you or I lose our "evil" semi-autos). I will repeat: the number of people who cast votes solely on the basis of the gun issue is 5% at maximum. If they all vote in concert for a candidate that has a chance to win, they'll get something done - otherwise they won't. Splitting that 5%, staying home, voting for 3rd party candidates in the general election - all of these diminish or eliminate the voice of the entire 5%, and thereby damage the cause of gun rights. Your present voting methods may give you great personal satisfaction, but they don't do anything but help to elect the more evil party, the one that explicitly wants to ban guns. Again, you might as well not vote.

65 posted on 05/21/2003 8:31:53 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
I understand you didn't mean me specifically because you stated such in your post but my contention still stands.

"My credo is to vote as you want to in the primaries, and to vote for the lesser of two evils in the general"

The Republican insiders control who has the party money to run primary campaigns. They make sure it is someone like Bush who give lipservice to the Constitution but then go along to get along, the only thing important is having the power, not getting anything done.

If you are going to effect change you must vote your convictions not your fears.

I am not a one issue voter but I am committed to my tagline.

You seem to understand that the Constitution is being violated left and right but you wont stand up for your convictions. If you continue in this manner you will be among the first to hand over your weapons when the UN comes to take them away from you, because the Republicrats and Demonicans tell you it is the lesser of two evils.

Ravenstar
66 posted on 05/21/2003 8:42:15 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Is he only bound by his word to pass EXACTLY only an extensino of the current AWB?

If a version is passed with more restrictions, such as a total ban on hicap mags etc, do you think he will use that as a reason to not sign it?

I've been pondering that question, too. Given Bush's track record, I think he'll sign an expanded ban that hammers high-capacity magazine imports. I don't think he'll sign a broad expansion such as that proposed by Feinstein and McCarthy. Just a hunch, mind you.

Also, did you see the wording that DeLay used? Looky here:

"It is very simple. The votes to expand it aren't in the House," DeLay said during his weekly briefing Tuesday, in response to a question about the ban's renewal.

In this newer statement by DeLay, he appears to have taken a half-step back, leaving room for a compromise.

We need to stress in our letters and phone calls that any compromise which leaves only the existing ban in place (as opposed to further expansion) is NOT acceptable.

67 posted on 05/21/2003 8:51:22 AM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
Good points!
68 posted on 05/21/2003 9:46:22 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
We clearly agree about the ultimate goal - unfettered access to firearms. I, for one, would like to be able to walk into a store and be able buy a machinegun without any background check, waiting period, permission slip from my chief employee at the local PD, or payment of $200 for a tax stamp - my grandfathers were able to do this, and there's no reason that I shouldn't be able to, as well. However, it is equally as clear that we disagree regarding the best method of getting to such a situation. Let's just leave it at that.

There is, however, one point that I must respond to in your last post: I will NOT be handing over weapons to anyone. FYI, I am Jewish and lost lots of relatives in the Shoah ("Holocaust" is an improper term that dishonors the victims, but that is a very long story that I won't inflict on you). I am very well aware of what happens to disarmed Jews, and the example of Israel shows what happens when Jews have arms (they survive). I would strongly recommend against anyone, wearing whatever uniform, coming to take my weapons.

69 posted on 05/21/2003 10:04:29 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
You will give them the power to do so over your objections by your vote. You have been convinced by the demonicans that voting for the lesser of two evils is the best you can do and besides at least it isn't harmful.

This is the false premise you proceed from. It is every bit as harmful as if you had signed the order to confiscate the guns because that is where your vote, slowly albeit but inexorably and likely within your lifetime, is allowing them to go.

Ravenstar
70 posted on 05/21/2003 2:35:00 PM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-70 last

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