Bush's Support on Weapons Ban is Wise (editorial)

The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 2003-05-12 | Oklahoman Editorial

[cashion]

President Bush's announced support for extending the 1994 federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons doesn't mean he's set to join hands with anti-gun advocates.

Rather, it signals a common- sense president willing to place reasonable limits on Americans' right to keep and bear arms without running afoul of the Second Amendment.

In 1994 Congress passed a law outlawing the sale and possession of several types of assault weapons. The legislation is scheduled to expire next year, and Bush has said he supports extending it. Spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president considers the law a "reasonable" step.

That hardly puts him in lockstep with Sarah Brady, a leading gun-control lobbyist.

Bush doesn't favor an expansion of the ban to additional types of weapons, and the law that would be extended doesn't affect everyday Americans' constitutional right to have firearms -- for hunting, sport- shooting or self-defense.

We think it's a false argument to claim that banning some assault weapons means the entire Second Amendment is on its way to unraveling.

No one would reasonably argue that the Constitution guarantees every American the right to tote a bazooka. The assault weapons ban is a way to balance the individual right to keep firearms for legitimate purposes and government's responsibility to keep the public square safe from RPGs, tommy guns and mortar launchers.

Politically, Bush makes a wise move, clearly demonstrating he's not a marionette of the National Rifle Association, as some charge. "There are times when we agree, and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, another White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans."

On assault weapons, the president's position seems about right.

[cashion]

More often than not, we can be in agreement with editorials that come from the Daily Oklahoman. In this case, though, they're on the wrong side. Is anyone else interested in providing them with a rebuttal?

[TLBSHOW]

ping

[mabelkitty]

suckers!

snicker snicker

[Puppage]

common- sense

Sarah? Is that you?

[Joe Brower]

More mewlings from the Nation of Cowards.

[freeeee]

The assault weapons ban is a way to balance the individual right to keep firearms for legitimate purposes and government's responsibility to keep the public square safe from RPGs, tommy guns and mortar launchers.

Um, the "assault weapons" ban doesn't cover RPG's, tommy guns or mortar launchers. If it expired there would be literally no change in the legal status of those items.

Typical liberal strawman attack.

[SJSAMPLE]

My god, that thing is totally devoid of logic. It tries to make the claim that semi-automatic "assault weapons" are "tommyguns", grenade launchers or bazookas. WTF? When did critical thinking cease to become part of an editor's responsibilities?

[Trailerpark Badass]

No one would reasonably argue that the Constitution guarantees every American the right to tote a bazooka. The assault weapons ban is a way to balance the individual right to keep firearms for legitimate purposes and government's responsibility to keep the public square safe from RPGs, tommy guns and mortar launchers[sic].

None of which are affected by the AW Ban.

[Puppage]

The assault weapons ban is a way to balance the individual right to keep firearms for legitimate purposes

And, just WHO decides what's "legitimate"?

What legitimises it more than THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?

[Travis McGee]

What an idiot.

[freeeee]

Bush doesn't favor an expansion of the ban to additional types of weapons, and the law that would be extended doesn't affect everyday Americans' constitutional right to have firearms -- for hunting, sport- shooting or self-defense.

The Second Amendment doesn't mention hunting, sport shooting or self defense as limiting conditions. It mentions the security of a free state as its purpose.

Yet another liberal strawman attack. This article is full of outright lies and misrepresentations. Quite on purpose I think, and meant to frame the debate in fraudulent terms to a clueless public.

[dirtboy]

Bush doesn't favor an expansion of the ban to additional types of weapons, and the law that would be extended doesn't affect everyday Americans' constitutional right to have firearms -- for hunting, sport- shooting or self-defense.

I see they left out the most important reason - as a bulwhark against tyranny. Which means their logic has a gaping hole in it.

[Technogeeb]

reasonable limits on Americans' right to keep and bear arms without running afoul of the Second Amendment.

"...reasonable limits on Americans' right to be Catholic without running afoul of the First Amendment."

We think it's a false argument to claim that banning some assault weapons means the entire Second Amendment is on its way to unraveling

"We think it's a false argument to claim that banning some religions means the entire First Amendment is on its way to unraveling"

No one would reasonably argue that the Constitution guarantees every American the right to tote a bazooka

"No one would reasonably argue that the Constitution guarantees every American the right to convert to Islam"

The greatest of dangers lies along this path. The leftists have already shown that they can pervert the words of the Constitution into meaningless phrases; they've pretty much already done that to the 9th and 10th amendments (not to mention the body of the Constitution itself; Section 8 of Article 1 is pretty much dead). If the clear words of the 2nd amendment ("shall not be infringed") has no meaning or force, then neither do any of the other words in the Constitution (amendments or otherwise).

[Shooter 2.5]

Freep the poll. This is your chance to send a message to your elected officials. I would also suggest checking the bang list every morning to see if there are any more polls concerning the hot topics like the Missouri CCW law and the gun lawsuit bill.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/911662/posts

[P_A_I]

"There are times when we agree, and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, another White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans."


In direct opposition to his oath to protect & defend the RKBAs.

--- The 'reasonable regulations' of the AWB are direct infringments of the 2nd amendment.

[cashion]

My god, that thing is totally devoid of logic.

I whole-heartedly agree. I've written a response to the editor, but I'm thinking that posting it here before giving the paper the chance to print it may guarantee that it doesn't get printed. My reply went about 300 words. They say the chances of anything over 225 words getting printed are slight, but I'm keeping hope alive.