Posted on 05/18/2015 3:55:32 PM PDT by Jack Black
Yeah, you are RIGHT! You know criminals like all those Americans who owned evil Assault Weapons. Because you do know that the original Assault Weapons Ban was part of this big "get tough on crime bill" that Rand Paul is criticizing and everyone here is supporting! Right?
Disappointing, but I'm getting used to being disappointed by my fellow Freeper's embrace of big-government and unconstitutional laws. .
Here is the Wikipedia description of the law that Rand Paul is alluding to in his criticism of Hillary.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, Pub.L. 103–322 is an act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement that became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States, consisting of 356 pages providing for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers.[1] Sponsored by U.S. Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, the bill was originally written by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.You know, whatever Joe Biden thinks we should have for laws, we should support!! Law and order uber alles!Following the 101 California Street shootings, the 1993 Waco Siege, and other high-profile instances of violent crime, the Act expanded federal law in several ways. One of the most noted sections was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Other parts of the Act provided for a greatly expanded federal death penalty, new classes of individuals banned from possessing firearms, and a variety of new crimes defined in statutes relating to immigration law, hate crimes, sex crimes, and gang-related crime. The bill also required states to establish registries for sexual offenders by September 1997.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban[edit] Main article: Federal Assault Weapons Ban Title XI-Firearms, Subtitle A-Assault Weapons, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or the Semi-automatic Firearms Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms, classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. The list of such features included telescoping or folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and bayonet lugs.[2] This law also banned possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The ban took effect September 13, 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004, due to a sunset provision. Since the expiration date, it is again legal to own or possess the subject firearms as well as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The National Rifle Association and other organizations argued that the ban was unconstitutional and that it violated the Second Amendment.
Disappointing, but I'm getting used to being disappointed by my fellow Freeper's embrace of big-government and unconstitutional laws.
You're not smart enough to put words in my mouth so don't. I don't support Assault Weapons bans.
Unbelievable.
Your words in my post are in italics, just like mine in yours.
Pretty sure everyone knows how that works by now.
That said, while I don't want him in the WH, he does have a few positives.
The end game is to win and to take back our nation. Liberals control every institution of our culture and country, even a lot of the churches.
It'll take decades to do all this. We have to go on the offensive. Debating liberals on the issues and pointing out their hypocricy doesn't work anymore. They weild complete and supreme power everywhere. They aren't interested in debating us or even hiding their corruption anymore.
Attack!
This why we lose. Bringing up some kind of obscure political comparison from 100 years ago? This is the kind of namby pamby crap that makes us look like a bunch of weirdos.
I don't care about what Teddy Roosevelt did. I care about one of the good guys (Rand Paul) actually going on the offensive for ONCE.
I'm not talking about going lenient on criminals. I'm talking about attacking Hillary.
I'm absolutely astounded that every reply on this thread is so far off base about what Rand Paul is doing.
Do conservatives even know how to win anymore?
I doubt that very many of them make enough to be paying income taxes anyway, so it's pretty much a meaningless promise.
I don't support Assault Weapon bans. I never said that I did. And now you refuse to correct your false charge and instead post rules about italics which we all know.
In Hillary's America everyone on FR is probably viewed as a criminal - hell Obama's justice department has said as much about veterans and patriots in various memos.
I'm pretty sure that most readers could easily discern between your quoted comments, and my extrapolations.
But in case not, I will acknowledge that you are NOT for the AWB and, based on your clarifications here your comment "Why give lenient sentences to criminals" does not apply to criminals who have only violated the AWB portions of the Clinton-era crime law that we are discussing on this thread.
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.