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.

[Grut]

How a tiny minority who believe as you do...

Have you noticed how you're the only one arguing your position against a lot of Freepers?

If the Islamaniacs are allowed off the hook by the reclamation of power by the RATmedia it would take yrs and many thousands of lives to remove them.

Oh, come on! Neither the media nor the terrorists are all that effective - ever heard of 'the Hassan factor'? But even if your feverish imaginings were true, we do have years and, if necessary, 'thousands of lives' available to us. What we don't have is the luxury of letting 'The Real America' slip away because we're afraid to own up to a mistake.

[Zack Nguyen]

I am here to tell you that it will absolutely make it to his desk.

100% guarenteed.

If he does, this will directly contradict the political plan in place. Bush says that he'll do what he promised during the campaign and reauthorize the ban; meanwhile the Administration and House Republicans make every effort to ensure that it will never get to his desk. Rove and Co. are certainly aware that reauthorizing the ban is an act of political insanity for any Republican. They won't allow it to get in the way during an election year.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Did you read what you posted? The NRA can advertise any time all it has to do is NOT refer to a specific candidate.
Rather than the Schumer bill just refer to the proposed bill against Assault weapons. No restrictions are placed upon print ads as I said.

Freedom of the press was routinely restricted in states after 1787. Same with allowing taxation to support churches.

Scalia's comments (though I have not read his entire dissent) do not do him justice and appear to miss the point.
Most of the comments I have read here of those opposed to this law are simply incorrect such as your wrt the print media. Besides I said "only an absolute fool would be hindered by it." I stand by that and just watch the RATS get around the restrictions by simple legal manuevers.

Conservatives can't be stupid or pass unwise laws? I wish.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Ridiculous.

[Big Mack]

The more of your posts I read, the more of a whackjob you sound. You think Bush is the best thing since slised bread. Well, I did also after Klintoon, but any dead piece of meat would have been an improvement after the BJ. Actually, I was fine with Bush untill CFR. He wimped out leaving CFR in the hands of the Supreme Court and had his(and our) butts burned bad. We can no longer depend on the Supreme court to read the constitution, and if Bush signs any form of AWB, than we can no longer expect anyone in Washington to ever boyther to read the constitution again. Then there will be NO diff between republican or democrat. That's when we will need the assualt weapons.

[Lazamataz]

This law could be extended and later revoked.

I predicted that this would eventually be the defense.

[Lazamataz]

I think it should not be extended but that is far down the list of crucial concerns.

For you. For some of us, it matters more.

[nightdriver]

What we oughta do is get a law passed that local, state and federal governments cannot, under any circumstances, deny individual Americans the right to keep and bear any make, model and type of firearm that government agencies use against its citizens.

[Big Mack]

There is much more to the constitution than the 2nd, but the rest isn't worth spit without it.

[freeeee]

Rights are not put up to votes but laws are.

When a law that violates a right is put up to a vote, that right itself is up for a vote.

I'm sure you have no trouble understanding this.

[Charles Martel]

A lot of people tell me that this bill will never make it to Bush's desk.
I am here to tell you that it will absolutely make it to his desk.

I dunno... the anti-gun crowd definitely does *not* want the legislation granting firearms manufacturers broad immunity from liability lawsuits to pass in any form. This looks like a "poison pill" to me. Of course, while we're looking at this, they're probably working on another plan. Besides being attached to this bill as an amendment, is not Feinstein's AW Ban re-up (and more) still active as a stand-alone?

[tet68]

"I find it a dismaying part of public life that guns can be given a protection against lawsuits that no other industry has," Feinstein said.


Just more of that pesky 2nd Amendment stuff you wouldn't understand Dianne.

Say, maybe printing press locks isn't such a bad idea.....MMMM Dianne?

[freeeee]

No it is not a major issue.

You misunderstand me. I don't think you understand the 2nd Amendment but consider it to be of relatively minor importance.

Based on your statements in post 119, it is clear you don't understand what the 2nd Amendment means or why it was passed. That's explains why you don't think the ban is important:

"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."

This is the core argument of the anti's, from MMM to VPC, and every anti Rat in Congress from Schumer to Feinstein. You've lost a lot of credibility with that statement. It is my hope some of your fellow NRA members will take the time to help with your understanding.

[45Auto]

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

I will grant that the pack of rabid demonRATs running for the White House are a scary lot, indeed. But I'm not sure that a Republican Congressional majority and Republican control of the White House for the next 20 years will save the Republic. I have no doubt that the nation would survive another 8 years of RAT-domination; but what form it would be in after that is another thing.

There are many reasons to fear for the future of the Republic, however; the big one is how long major entitlements like Social Security and Medicare can go on spending at ever-increasing levels relative to how much tax money the bastards can steal from those who earn it.

I do think that while not all RATs fear the armed citizenry, at its core, the leadership of the DNC does see armed revolt as a possibility, should they push their real agenda too fast. As I said, there is always the unpredictable.

The 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution for a reason: the Founders certainly did not think it would ever be impossible for the armed citizenry not to be able to remove a tyrannical government. It was considered as a last resort, and the Founders writings on this are clear. I firmly think that the armed citizenry today does present a little problem to those who think that they can institute some sort of soft communism. There can be no other reason why people like Feinswine push for these unconstitutional laws. The RAT voters on the whole are a hell of a lot more interested in keeping abortion legal and keeping the welfare state growing than they are in disarming the average American.

[looscnnn]

"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."

Huh? Who is the one that is being sucked in by the liberal agenda, I am finding hard to believe you are NRA with that statement.

"Most of us on the FR recognize that the AW ban is unnecessary and would do no good"

Unnecessary? No, we call it unconstitutional. What part of shall not infringe do you not understand? That is paramount in the NRA.

"That is what needs to be addressed and worked on not quixote campaigns against real friends and fellow patriots."

If he signs the extension or a new AWB, he is not a friend of the Constitution or conservatives, nor is he a fellow patriot. This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It is not the only issue, but one of many, that will define if he is a friend and patriot.

"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."

It may have stopped, but that is not enough all the unconstitutional laws should be revoked. With the GOP controlling Congress and the WH, there is no reason this can't happen. But again, you being in the NRA, you should know that.

[ExSoldier]

"They are almost all military HATERS. "

Of course the RATS hate the military, especially the active military and lord above I got enough from them when I was on active duty as an officer, but I guess I sorta did enjoy pushing their buttons, too. Still, you know what i see when I spend all day waiting at the HUGE V.A. Hospital in Miami to be seen for one ailment or another (I'm sorta busted up)? I see tons of BLACK VETS. TONS. That's a core voter base for the RATS that it wouldn't pay much to anger. I can forgive everything except screwing over the vets and the gun control. If it takes an election cycle to get the 'Pubbies attention to take VETS, gun owners and the NRA seriously, I'll SPANK Bush. Clinton couldn't destroy the republic in eight years and he really tried! Kerry won't make much trouble IF we elect a really strong Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Veto proof / Override certain. What will the RATS do then?

Thank you, BTW for your sentiments on my service, I truly appreciate it. Freepers do that a lot and I do it a lot, but it sorta takes me by surprise when it happens to me. lol I will pray for your son's safety.

[looscnnn]

"there was nothing in my remark implying any such thing."

It sure seemed like the remark meant that the Constitution was not a relavent issue.

"Bad laws, unwise laws, even ridiculously ineffective laws are NOT the same as "unconstitutional" laws."

True, but the AWB is unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed is plainly stated in the 2nd amendment. Does the AWB infringe on a citizen's right keep and bear arms? Yes. The 2nd does not say you can keep and bear arms, except ones that look like military weapons or semi-autos. In fact they should be ones that you should be able to keep and bear, due to the need for a well regulated militia. What better way to arm a militia than with military style weapons. But you should know that, being NRA.

[45Auto]

I also think that Free Republic has been infiltrated by DNC operatives who come here pretending to be "Conservatives", but who really are interested in stirring up the base against Bush. In that, they are very, very clever.

The idea that the 2nd is about anything other than removing a tyrannical government by force of an armed citizenry is preposterous. The Founders were not stupid men. The argument that an armed populace would not stand a chance against an organized federal force is flawed.

The real power and authority in this country rests in the people themselves; we have been led to believe by a corrupt media that it isn't so and that the Federal government is all-powerful; that all our rights derive from a benevolent central authority. To this I say BS. Other than minor political pandering, there can no other reason for the RATs insistence on more and more "gun control" - to the point that eventually they can take off the mask and declare the Republic to be dead - replaced by a not-so-benevolent dictatorship. That is the real agenda - and Feinswine is a key architect.

[looscnnn]

"Most of the complainers here are not part of his base and, like freeee, never voted for him in the first place."

It is amazing the number of psychics on FR. You are able to see that someone never voted for Bush, or in the case of some how they have voted in other elections.

"They just like to adopt a Holier than Thou attitude and reject all practicality."

As opposed to the paranoid, the world is going to end, everyone who does not think like me is not conservative or is the enemy type attitude?

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

As opposed to when others crawl out when someone complains about a liberal issue that Bush advances?

[looscnnn]

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

So that makes it less relevant?