Gephardt, Kucinich Lead Fight Against Assault Weapons

Join Together, CSGV ^ | 10-10-03 | Blaine Rummell

[coloradan]

I know the second amendment was not written for sportsmen, but it wasn't written for gangsters and thugs either.

Please tell us, then: who was it written for, and for what purpose?

(Was it written to protect the right of States to have a National Guard, so that governors would have a Constitutionally protected right to shoot war protestors within their state, as happened at Kent State in Ohio, some decades ago?)

[Mulder]

I know the second amendment was not written for sportsmen, but it wasn't written for gangsters and thugs either

You're right. It wasn't written for the BATFE, the FBI, or the local ninja-SWAT team.

The gun control people oppose anything which advances the cause of gun rights, and the pro-gun-rights people oppose anything which restricts guns in any way

And the pro-slavery people oppose anything which advances the cause of Freedom, while the anti-slavery people oppose anything which turns certain people in slaves. So both must be wrong, according to your logic.

[Mulder]

The "snipers" used a .223, which is a powerful round, to be sure, but if these anti-gun types were to ever compare it to a common hunting round (I have in mind the .30-.30, .30-.06 and the .300 magnum), they would be astounded. They have no idea of the power of hunting rifles. "Assault weapons" by comparison are kind of puny.

I was just looking at this the other day.

It turns out that grandpa's old .30-.06 rifle has more energy at 500 yards that the latest souped-up AR-15 does at the muzzle.

[A6M3]

Reply to post #1: America needs to rid its streets of Democrats once and for all, not guns. The Democratic party has morphed into a party totally controlled by marxist revolutionarys and is the greatest threat the United States has faced since the war between the states. We fight world wide terror abroard and ignore the Democratic malignancy eating away at the bowels of our nation.

[Mulder]

but that argument is lost on me when discussing assault weapons.

True "assault weapons" (select fire weapons) have been (illegally) banned for decades unless you fill out the proper federal paperwork and get special approval.

The latest legislation is nothing more than an attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles. Once they accomplish that, it's on to banning handguns of a certain size or caliber, or "long range sniper rifles".

I think the gun-rights lobby (and you guys) are overly paranoid of the slippery slope phenomenon.

Wrong again. It's because we know the history of how tyrannical governments have disarmed their people throughout the ages. For recent examples, study what has happened in Australia and England. Once they got the ball rolling concerning gun control, it didn't take long until they totally disarmed their populace.

One of the biggest anti-gun traitors is even on the record saying that is really doesn't matter what kind of gun control passes, just that something passes, so that they can keep the ball moving and advance on to the next phase of gun control.

Most of here have read the various "gun control" legislation, and know exactly what the anti-gunners want to do to us. They want to take all of our guns and ammo, and either kill us or send us to a concentration death camp if we refuse to comply.

[o_zarkman44]

As a Missourian, I am ashamed that Gephardt is from Missouri. His information is only as good as his advisors who screen everything for him. And he has missed so many votes in the House, exactly what does he stand for?
I don't think he is capable of making an informed decision about anything. And since when did a rifle become an assult weapon? And how does a crime committed with a hunting rifle justify tougher laws against high powered rifles, when the moron classifys everything as an assult rifle?
When Dickie Spinmeister spouts, the truth hides.

[Mulder]

I was just stating that the debate has become more about pride than practicality.

It's about defending the Constitution which millions of us have taken an oath to defend, and which millions of others have died or suffered serious injury defending.

Those who believe this is all about "pride" are going to be in for a rough awakening once the Day comes, should the tyrant-wanna-bees take it to that point.

[neverdem]

"Those so called assault rifles were banned purely on cosmetic reasons. They just looked so evil. They were banned based on what combination of cosmetic features (bayonet lug, flash suppressor, pistol grip, detachable magazine) because gun grabbers had no other rational way to identify the guns that they didn't like."

I know you didn't mean it, but you are implying what they did was rational. I'm sure we agree that what they think is rational is undermining the RKBA.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I think the gun-rights lobby (and you guys) are overly paranoid of the slippery slope phenomenon. I don't know anyone who hunts with an Uzi.

---

Anyone who thinks the 2nd amendment is about hunting probably thinks the 1st amendment is about playing Scrabble.

[Atlas Sneezed]

True "assault weapons" (select fire weapons) have been (illegally) banned for decades unless you fill out the proper federal paperwork and get special approval...

---

...AND limit yourself to buying one of the few (one per one thousand citizens) that are legally available for citizen possession, at prices inflated by a factor of ten due to the 1986 ban, AND limit yourself to technology that is PERPETUALLY, for the (short remaining?) life of the Republic, limited to 1986 obsolete technology.

[neverdem]

"The gun control people oppose anything which advances the cause of gun rights, and the pro-gun-rights people oppose anything which restricts guns in any way. Both sides have this slippery slope mentality in which common sense gets thrown out the window. That's all _I'm_ saying."

Other than the Emerson decision, Ashcroft's saying the 2nd amendment recognizes an individual right, and Alaska passing a law allowing concealed carry without a license, there have been no other advances for gun rights, IIRC.

Various states passing laws permitting concealed carry for folks with licenses are revokable privileges, not rights.

And the slope is quite slippery. How many stupid laws are ever repealed.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I was with you until

"They want to take all of our guns and ammo, and either kill us or send us to a concentration death camp if we refuse to comply."

---

Why else would they want to disarm citizens? 100,000,000 disarmed dead humans at the hands of their governments in the 20th century should be a solid hint!

[Mulder]

I was with you until "They want to take all of our guns and ammo, and either kill us or send us to a concentration death camp if we refuse to comply." I think that is something X-files Mulder really would believe.

You need to go to THOMAS and read the actual legislation. Most violations of "proposed future federal gun laws" would result in a 10-20 year felony sentence for each offense.

[Mulder]

AND limit yourself to buying one of the few (one per one thousand citizens) that are legally available for citizen possession, at prices inflated by a factor of ten due to the 1986 ban, AND limit yourself to technology that is PERPETUALLY, for the (short remaining?) life of the Republic, limited to 1986 obsolete technology.

Very good point. They are freezing the techology for "we the people" at some arbitrary date, while they continue to accumulate the latest and greatest and the expense of Joe Q. Taxpayer.