Assault weapons ban back in play; Feinstein tries to get reluctant Congress ...

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb 9, 2004 | by Edward Epstein

[Lazamataz]

Washington -- Gun control hasn't emerged as a leading issue in the 2004 presidential race, but that is likely to change as Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein intensifies her effort to win renewal of the decade-old assault weapons ban, which expires in September.

[jjm2111]

"There is much more to the Constitution than the 2d amendment."

The Second really is the key-stone for all the rest.

[flashbunny]

read his other posts on other gun related topics. He professes to be know about the constitution, but he doesn't think the 2nd amendment was put their to prevent governmental tyranny, despite quotes from the founding fathers. He is basically a one-note blowhard expert who thinks he is right about everything. Any attempt to debate with logic is futile.

[freeeee]

unless our enemies are confronted and destroyed, there will be no constitution to fight about are another matter

No foreign power can revoke our Constitution. Not Osama, or any collection of enemies combined can pass a single law here. The only power with that capability is right here at home.

They willingly join the Enemy under the pretense that it will somehow help the cause they claim to support when in fact it will lead to more certain removal of the rights they pretend to protect.

Now that's ironic.

There is no shortage of the gullible.

Gullible? Gullible is believing that someone who wants to renew one of the biggest achievements of the anti's is on your side.

"Of course I support the 2nd Amendment.. What's that you feel on your leg? Oh, that's rain..."

[philetus]

We need to get rid of Fienstien, Boxer, and Shumer and Pelosi and .......................................

[freeeee]

There is much more to the Constitution than the 2d amendment.

Much more than the 2nd has suffered lately.

But don't take my word for it, go ahead and dare take out an ad before an election... you'll find out the hard way.

[ought-six]

"Yes, adherence to the Constitution (in other words, upholding your oath) is my one issue."

Yup.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't think the gungrabbers are the slightest bit afraid of an armed population rather this issue is just a way of scaring the weakminded into flocking to the RATS for protection. Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government since militia's would not stand a chance against a modern army (nor did they in the 1787.) The times they fought well were exceptions not the rule as Washington repeatedly complained about.

Those bloviating about Bush seem to be under the illusion that there is an actual VIABLE candidate who would be closer to their positions. Bush was the most conservative candidate with any chance of being elected BY FAR. He was BY FAR the most gun-friendly candidate running (not counting the 1%s who appeal to the perpetually disgruntled such as freeee.)

For those who care about the survival of the nation there is no other choice.

Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate, initially it did not even apply to the states only the fedgov. Unless you believe that the Crips and Bloods have the RtKaBA and continue in their lawbreaking ways. The question is what laws ARE justifiable and necessary. With the spread of CC laws it appears those laws are being reduced.

Most of us on the FR recognize that the AW ban is unnecessary and would do no good but its extension should not be used to deprive us of a leader who understands what our principle enemies are and what they want to do. And it should be clear that the possibility of an extension would not exist unless the majority of the people supported the idea. When enough are against it it will go away. That is what needs to be addressed and worked on not quixote campaigns against real friends and fellow patriots.

Plus it should be obvious to all that the spate of gun control laws stopped when the GOP achieved more control of the Congress and the Presidency. I see no reason to believe it will be resumed UNLESS knuckleheads join forces with the RATS to defeat Bush.

[ought-six]

"If the Constitution has become meaningless, then so has the Union."

The Constitution IS the Republic! Without it the Republic is dead.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No, of course, there was nothing in my remark implying any such thing.

I have noticed that those quickest to complain of "unconstitutionality" do not have a clue as to the meaning of the constitution. Yet, that does not stop them from demonstrating their ignorance.

Most of the squawkers seem to believe any law they don't like is "unconstitutional." Bad laws, unwise laws, even ridiculously ineffective laws are NOT the same as "unconstitutional" laws. Just because I might not like some doesn't mean they are unconstitutional.

[ExSoldier]

"His base is firm."

One word: BULL. His "base" is slipping away from different directions like the tide going out with a rip current. He has REALLY angered folks with the out of control spending; his pandering to illegal immigrants; his support of the AWB (this is my line in the sand: If he even whispers that he's pushing it, I'll work against him); relying on a corrupt CIA Director like Tenet and not firing his sorry A$$ after the failed intel for both the war and 9/11; and a litany of other issues. LIKE: I'm a VET and a member of the VA. GWB's proposed budget DOUBLES the cost of my prescriptions AND requires a $250 PER YEAR fee to use the VA Hospital facilities? Gimme a break!

[ought-six]

What you don't seem to understand is that death by one swing of the blade and death by multiple cuts of a smaller blade is still death. What you advocate is slow death by a hundred cuts instead of quick death by one huge cut. I want neither.

[Rebel-without-a-pause]

If this bill makes it to his desk, and he signs it, he will lose his base in huge numbers. I'm not saying it to be controversial or adversarial to the administration; I'm saying it because it's fact.

Well here is a fact for you. I am one of his base and if he signs an AWB bill I won't vote for him.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Most of the complainers here are not part of his base and, like freeee, never voted for him in the first place. They are part of the Lovers of Losers brigades which routinely reject anyone with a chance of winning for those without even a miniscule chance of winning.

They just like to adopt a Holier than Thou attitude and reject all practicality. I don't consider them as serious people or even honest in many cases.

They crawl out of the woodwork every time he actually does something to start this sort of attack.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is false since it wasn't even IN the constitution until amended.

[Monty22]

I'll probably still vote for him, but would be with a *very* heavy heart.

Lets do all we can do to make sure it dies in congress.

[ought-six]

"Rational 2d amendment supporters are fine, those pretenders who cannot recognize that, unless our enemies are confronted and destroyed, there will be no constitution to fight about are another matter."

Good God, man! The ONLY part of the Constitution that absolutely terrifies the leftists (which is most of the Democratic Party) is the Second Amendment! By leaving the Second Amendment inviolate we ARE confronting and destroying our enemies. The Second Amendment is what is defeating the leftists, and provides the means to do so. That is why they are so adamantly opposed to it.

[Godebert]

"There is ONE issue in this election. Will the president defeat those who want to destroy us or will the American people get wobbly and allow its worst enemies back into power? Apparently you would choose the latter course. Too bad."

Our worst enemies are all those who seek to remove our God-given rights. Sixty days prior to this November's election....the National Rifle Association will be prohibited (under penalty of federal felony prosecution) from running print, radio and TV ads mentioning any candidates stand on the issues. That law (McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill) was signed by George W. Bush in direct violation of his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Combine that with his intention to infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights, refusal to control our borders, proposed amnesty for illegal alien invaders, passage of huge new entitlement social programs (prescription drugs), and his record increas e in federal spending and then tell us again about "single-issue" voters. You're a broken record.

[freeeee]

Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate

You must have an interesting defintion of "shall not be infringed".

initially it did not even apply to the states only the fedgov

We aren't discussing state bans on this thread.

Unless you believe that the Crips and Bloods have the RtKaBA and continue in their lawbreaking ways.

Please be clear: are you saying the only people who oppose infringement are gang members???

And it should be clear that the possibility of an extension would not exist unless the majority of the people supported the idea. When enough are against it it will go away.

Rights aren't up for a vote. If they were, they wouldn't be rights, they'd be priviledges.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It wasn't even IN the constitution until amended.

Militia's were under state control and not recognized as such unless officered by officers appointed by the state and trained under federal regulation.

Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose "...being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state. I am sure such points mean nothing to you.

Their practical function was almost entirely to protect the citizenry from Indian attacks. Against a real army they were of limited use and those among the founders who had served in the Continental Army well understood this.

A "one-note blowhard?" Please, I use the whole Octave and it sounds much more harmonious than the atonal screaching from you boys.

Oh, you might want to check your writing so that one does not get the idea that you can't think OR write correctly.

[freeeee]

Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose "...being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state. I am sure such points mean nothing to you.

Now I clearly see why the ban isn't an issue with you.

It took some doing, but at least you're beginning to be honest about it.