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

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

[justshutupandtakeit]

So you don't understand the CFR Act either, I note. It is false that the NRA cannot advertise in print AT ANY TIME it wishes. I will bet you have never even read the law but just swallow whatever favored interpreter says about it. The NRA can also advertise in the electronic media at any time as long as it is not a sneak attack.

The law in no way contradicts the beliefs of most of the founders who did not want the elections to be controlled by powerful, anonymous interest groups. It attempts to achieve some degree of transparency wrt these ads.

It appears that most of what those attacking this law do not have a clue about what it REALLY says. Only an absolute fool will be hindered by it.

It is not unconstitutional. Maybe unwise or ineffectual or dumb but not uC.

[Leatherneck_MT]

and it is a fact.

[Rebel-without-a-pause]

I'm drinking to that even as we speak.

[justshutupandtakeit]

How cute, how irrelevent.

If our enemies are given more power our danger increases apparently you have no concern about that. Nor does it bother you to join the notorious Bush haters which control the RATmedia. Hillary sends her thanks.

JFngKerry wants to know when he can count on your support?

I wasn't speaking entirely of foreign enemies but their domestic allies as well. The ones who join you in your Bush-hating rants. Do you get paid for your work or are you doing it for freeeee?

[WKB]

I'm not saying it to be controversial or adversarial to the administration;




Of course not, that just wouldn't be you would it?

[WKB]

I'm not saying it to be controversial or adversarial to the administration;




Of course not, that just wouldn't be you would it?

[justshutupandtakeit]

You are dreaming, a nice romantic dream but still a dream. Leftists aren't terrified by the 2d amendment in any way. It is just a convenient whipping boy they use to appeal to the weak-minded terrorized by crime.

There is no confrontation of the Islamaniacs through the second amendment. There is no confrontation of any of our enemies through it.

It is a recognition of a right but there will never be a militia of military value again.

[Shooter 2.5]

It's too late to get rid of anyone before the vote is taken. The only thing we can do is use all this energy to write the people who are in office now why they are there and who put them there. As long as Bush's numbers are in doubt, we have a better chance that they will listen.

[justshutupandtakeit]

So you haven't read the law either I see.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No, I advocate actual hard work in educating the masses as to what these laws are and what they mean and how they don't work. This is FAR harder than just claiming something to be unconstitutional.

Not all hope is lost however, since the CC laws have spread across most of the states. As the truth about their relation to crime reduction and public safety spreads so will the inability to pass gun control laws.

The absolute WORST course is to attack those leaders on our side, like Bush.

[Big Mack]

No sir. If the President signs the AWB in any form, he then becomes the one trying to destroy the nation.

[45Auto]

Your analysis seems about right in most points. The question is why the hell would the President take a chance on pissing off a fair number of his voter base to uphold what is an obviously flawed and worthless piece of Clintonoid legislation? Certainly, Pres Bush doesn't need to pander to those who will vote for Feinstein (and her ilk) no matter what.

I grant that all politicians (including Pres Bush) will take the easy way of political expediency especially if there were legitimate polls that indicated that a large majority of people were behind the AW ban (or other unconstitutional laws; we have seen that over and over again). But until the media (with the help of some lunatic perpetrating a major massacre) whips up an hysterical frenzy over this, the Republican Congressional Leadership should understand that they have a lot more to possibly lose if they send along a permanent extension of this law. Several studies have been commissioned concerning the effects of the 94 AW ban, one from the Clinton administration DOJ itself. The conclusion has been that this ban has had no measurable positive effect on the incidence of gun crimes.

How much political capitol do the Repubos think they are going to get from making this worthless law permanent? It can be renewed only at their detriment. The real truth about this whole business, is that the media is somehow behind the entire thing; that they want to push this to front stage to scare the already squeamish repubos into thinking that little old ladies will demand their heads for "bowing to the likes of the NRA". I think the entire notion that the President is "in trouble" with his core supporters is just so much BS invented by the media, the propaganda arm of the DNC.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You really had to go out of your way to misconstrue my statement like that. Obviously I was speaking of the rights of the state to disarm violent criminals such as the Crips and Bloods. Presumably you would allow them all the weaponry they wish to own.

Rights are not put up to votes but laws are. If enough people say "no laws against the RtKaBA" then the politicians will pay attention. Public education is a vital necessity in this area as in most.

Not only that but people can have rights removed(or infringed) because of their transgressions against society. But you would probably argue against that as well.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It appears fairly clear that Bush's strategy is to avoid domestic confrontations while concentrating on confronting our foreign enemies. It is not my ideal strategy but, as you have probably noted, I am confrontational.

There appears almost no chance this law will ever get out of the House much less reach his desk. I think it is stupid but nothing worth removing Bush over in such perilous times.

[Godebert]

"So you don't understand the CFR Act either, I note. It is false that the NRA cannot advertise in print AT ANY TIME it wishes. I will bet you have never even read the law but just swallow whatever favored interpreter says about it. The NRA can also advertise in the electronic media at any time as long as it is not a sneak attack."

Excerpted from Wayne LaPierre's column in American Rifleman:

The law in question, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCFR), makes pre-election broadcasts of issue advertising--by groups such as the NRA or the Sierra Club, and all labor unions--a crime if the government can claim those ads refer in any way to a politician running for federal office. Under BCRA, it will be a felony for the NRA, using corporate funds, even to refer to a "Schumer bill" or a "Feinstein amendment" if those words are aired in any broadcast media 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days before a general election and can be heard or viewed anywhere in their home states of New York or California. Even use of the term "The President" in such an ad is a prohibited criminal act---nationwide.

"The law in no way contradicts the beliefs of most of the founders who did not want the elections to be controlled by powerful, anonymous interest groups. It attempts to achieve some degree of transparency wrt these ads."

Going by your views of what the founders thought of the 2nd Amendment, your opinion of what they thought on the 1st Amendment is hardly suprising.

"It appears that most of what those attacking this law do not have a clue about what it REALLY says. Only an absolute fool will be hindered by it."

So Justice Scalia is a "fool" in your eyes?

"The Freedom to associate with others for the dissemination of ideas...by pooling financial resources for expressive purposes---is part of the freedom of speech".------Justice Scalia.

"It is not unconstitutional. Maybe unwise or ineffectual or dumb but not uC."

Take a good look folks....is this what passes for "Conservatism" these days on Freerepublic?

[Jarhead_22]

I am a member of the NRA and have been for yrs. Having been raised around and with guns I have no fear of them nor of the 2d amendment's intent.

I never accused you of being fearful, so you're arguing a point I haven't raised.

However, it doesn't take much brain power to understand that defeating Bush is the dream of our most deadly enemies internally and externally. Nor does it take an Einstein to figure out that any RAT put in his place would remove far more of our rights protected by the 2d amendment than Bush would. Since this is so obviously true I have doubts about what those spouting off like lunatics on this issue REALLY intend. It could not be protecting the RtKaBAs since their tactics and strategy are SO absurd. They lead to total defeat for the positions claimed by their advocates.

Again, you're being needlessly insulting.

Simply by nature of the fact that he would take away FEWER of my rights than his possible Democrat replacement does not mean I march in Triumph of the Will lockstep with every stroke of the President's pen. I oppose him on his immigration, spending, campaign finance reform, medicare giveaway and firearms policies, and have made that fact clear to my Republican US Senators and Representative, as well as to the White House message center. Although I disagree with his divergence from conservatism, I will vote for him again in November, the insults of the koolaid drinkers notwithstanding.

As to my screen name, look in a dictionary under "irony."

There can be no irony without a kernel of truth.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thank you for your service (my eldest boy will complete his basic training at Great Lakes this Friday.) I do not support burdening veterans in any way but surely you understand the vast difference between Bush and ANY RAT which would supplant him. They are almost all military HATERS.

The other issues deserve a thread of their own and are not as clear cut as you might think.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No it is not a major issue. I think it should not be extended but that is far down the list of crucial concerns.

Defeating the Islamaniacs is so much more important that almost nothing else should be discussed. This is why the RATmedia tries so desperately to change the subject to ANYTHING but national security.

[Big Mack]

I too am NRA,probably longer than you. What you don't seem to understand is that this AWB is a line in the sand for many of us that believe in the 2nd. You seem to think that If Bush fell in Nov. that the end of the world would be at hand.(maybe if a rat won, it would) Well for many of us, if Bush signs a AWB than the end of the world is here before a rat takes over. For too many decades we have been giving up a little here and a little there. The NRA has never been the champion of the 2nd it proports to be. Too many restrictions and laws just slip on by and all we do is cry. NO MORE!!! If Bush signs an AWB then he is worse than a demorcrat, he is a hypocrit.(sp intentional)

[justshutupandtakeit]

That analogy fails since one can survive a few cuts maybe even 50 or 75 but NOT the one fatal cut.

This law could be extended and later revoked. It would not be revoked EVER under a RAT president.

Those turning against Bush would ensure the second option.
This is what I am fighting against.