Posted on 11/13/2003 12:45:22 PM PST by 45Auto
Your example argument does not take the same form as the one in which you attempt to claim that jsuati supports the AW ban, therefore it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Nice.
Step one in creating a totalitarian state is stifling all disenting opinions.
If he gains even 200,000 soccer moms in Long Island, will it really matter in New York where he lost by about a million.
And losing 20,000 each in Michigan, Penn, Wisconsin, West VA, and Ohio each can cost 5 states.
John Engler won by 17,000 and Mike Cox by 5500 statewide here.
You still have not provided evidence that that is the correct meaning the founders intended as opposed to "well functioning."
Well, I like tpaine. The crusty old sunovabitch. :o)
But it was important for me to deconstruct what was a clear logical fallacy. Of course, I'll let the lurkers and other freepers decide for themselves.
Off to work. See you around, you arrogant pompous know-it-all gotta-have-it-your-way absolutist intolerant piece of s**t. ;^)
What's to stop another "Columbine" from happening at a very convenient time (and being hyped to high heaven by the 'Rat dominated media)? The Ugly Gun ban? Bwahahahahaha!!! ;'}
Why is this your make-or-break issue?
Good question.
Short answer: Because there's absolutely no excuse for its renewal to even be voted on by a subcommittee much less actually be passed by a Republican controlled congress.
Slightly longer answer: I have been a hard-core RKBA activist (off and on) for nigh unto twenty years. There is a plethora of blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws, dating to the late 1800s. I have seen that plethora grow in spite of my efforts to reverse it; the only real improvement has been the wave of "shall issue" concealed carry laws passed by many states. During this time, I have heard endless excuses from Republican Party apologists as to why we can't get anything repealed or reversed. The Republican Congress, they say, can't get anythign done with a Democrat President. The Republican President, they say, can't get anything done with a Democrat Congress. How this explains Bush41's ban-by-executive-fiat (BATF reinterpretation of GCA '68) of imported Ugly Guns eludes me.
Well, now, it's the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Three. By the Grace of God (so they tell me) we have a Republican President, a Republican controlled House of Representatives, and even a Republican controlled Senate. That Republican President, while still a candidate, promised to sign a renewal of the 1994 Ugly Gun ban. He was, so they tell me, triangulating; trying to win the votes of the whining leftists but also telling the Republican controlled Congress not to put an UG ban on his desk in the first place. If that's the case, that Republican controlled Congress had bloody well better not pass an UG ban. Here's the kicker: we're not asking the Congress to actually repeal anything. If the Congress does precisely nothing, in September 2004 the Ugly Gun ban ends. Poof. Gone. In 1994, the Congress put a 10 year poison pill in the Ugly Gun ban, and even so it just barely passed a Democrat controlled House. Asking the Congress to do nothing is not asking them to display any particular courage. So if the Congress passes an extension of the Ugly Gun ban, and the President signs it into law, I will know that they have deliberately, willfully, and with malice aforethought, stabbed me in the back. Any attempt by the Republican Party apologists to minimize or explain away such betrayal will, along with their previous two decades of excuses, be revealed as of no more value than the gibbering of baboons. So that's why it's a make or break issue for me. I don't vote to reelect traitors and back-stabbers.
That wasn't the hypothetical bet. We both start at 100 feet (30 paces) from one another: perfect blunderbuss range.
My first shot launches 100+ rusty nails at you with a spread pattern ten feet wide.
You are wearing a Colonial shirt and three corner hat, I am wearing a kevlar vest, helmet and ceramic ballistic plate.
I have a helicopter standing by to take me to a trauma center, you get dirty bandages, a rusty saw and a bullet to bite for medical care.
This balances 1780 vs 2003 firepower, protection and medicine. I'd take that bet.
The point is that weapons were plenty deadly in 1780, at least as deadly if not more so when you consider the total equation including medical care for wounds etc.
I think that a lot of folks view this as the ultimate slippery-slope legislation -- law that bans a whole range of firearms purely on some arbitrary appearance issue. If it is renewed or strengthened, it is a precedent for banning more and more firearms on ever broader and vaguer criteria. Case in point was the CA "assault weapons" ban that ended up making a whole class of high-end .22 target pistols illegal because of the location of the magazine.
So while the law itself has had little impact beyond the very real impossibility imposed in obtaining standard cap magazines for any post-ban firearm designs (and the increased cost of buying legal standard cap mags for those that accept pre-ban designs), it's really the precedent the ban sets that rankles folks.
Whether the issue is in and of itself enought to warrant voting against Bush over, that's for each person to decide for himself, but the issue itself is a genuine one with great potential impact.
Nice.
The second step to a totalitarian government is to re-write history.
You do realize that this statement is utterly incorrect, don't you? If you don't, you need to do a little research. Private individuals in the 1700's owned whatever they could afford - up to and including warships.
I'll say this for H&K, they sure know how to ugly-up a perfectly good design. The SL-8 reminds me of the hideous camoflage that the auto manufacturers apply to their new vehicles when they put them on the road for real-world testing.
If the H&K design is picked up as a new U.S. military rifle, we may yet see an attractive semi-auto version of the G-36 - and it'll be manufactured here.
If that does not come to pass, the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban may not clear the way for new German semi-autos. IIRC, many high-dollar products from the likes of H&K, Sig and FN were effectively banned during the Bush (41) presidency.
Some attribute that action to an Executive Order, but I've never seen any such EO. It's more likely that BATF was allowed to block the import of certain firearms; the authority for which extends from the 1968 Gun Control Act. I might be mistaken, but that's the way I remember the 1990-92 period. If anyone else can add details, please jump in.
BTW, it *is* possible to legally modify an SL-8 to look amazingly like its military cousin. HKPro has some threads on the subject, but it ain't an inexpensive project. Someone even figured out how to chemically change the color of the plastic from pale grey to charcoal black.
You are right. It is silly. Therefore I will post your logical fallacy again in it's entirity:
tpaine: Thus, you support a man who says he will sign a bill prohibiting such weapons. -- You support signing the bill..You subsequently offered this as a argument backing your original (paraphrased):
You are committing a retroductive fallacy of soundness (somewhat taking the form of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy). To wit:
Allow me to demonstrate by example where this fails:
- Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
- George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
- Therefore, Jsuati supports the AW ban.
- Roosters crow in the morning.
- In the morning the sun comes up.
- Therefore, roosters make the sun come up.
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.