Skip to comments.
Assault weapons ban back in play; Feinstein tries to get reluctant Congress ...
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| Feb 9, 2004
| by Edward Epstein
Posted on 02/09/2004 9:03:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 661-672 next last
To: drypowder
If I'm not mistaken, there is nothing in the proposed law that states: if a gun has a manufacturer's defect and an injury occurs due to that defect, that company is NOT liable Quite the opposite, the bill, at least the version that has passed the House, contains a provision that allows suites in the case of a defective product.
221
posted on
02/10/2004 8:43:52 AM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: Lazamataz
I think one of the biggest threats to stopping a renewal of the AWB is the gun makers. They are doing fine as is. But they would really like to have lawsuit protection.
To: Grut
On any given subject there are a few posters who are fixated on it. There have been Civil War threads where I have been arguing almost singlehandedly against a group to which that is a principle subject of interest. Most posters just give up arguing with them since they are very difficult to communicate with on a rational basis. I am foolish enough not to give up. However, that does not mean I am the only one here who believes as I do.
This is true with this issue and most of the conversation is between a few people. Most are at the very extreme of FR and not at all representative of FR. (Not that I am claiming I am either.)
No, I have not heard of the "hassan factor." But unless terrorism is confronted now it will be almost impossible to eradicate in the future. As it is it will be a decades long struggle thanks to the RAT destruction in the 90s. Anything which assists RAT return to power is anti-American.
Hyperbole is generally inappropriate and a good example is equating a AWB with losing the "real America." It is just silly to think that.
223
posted on
02/10/2004 8:46:38 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: IGOTMINE
Already happened, 10 months ago.
224
posted on
02/10/2004 8:49:35 AM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
"This does not compute." It does not compute that behavior will change if that behavior does not receive a penalty.
225
posted on
02/10/2004 8:50:58 AM PST
by
gatex
To: Big Mack
There is no better (or conservative) man who could TODAY be elected president than Bush. That is the simple truth of it. Those who cannot see that are the Whackjobs and are objectively allied with Hillary, Dean, Osama, Kerry, the French and the Islamaniacs.
Very few intelligent people piss against the wind without expecting to get wet. But go right ahead just don't forget your raincoat.
226
posted on
02/10/2004 8:51:23 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: Lazamataz
I merely stated that as a matter of fact and don't expect any necessity for such a defense nor would I support the extension using that argument.
227
posted on
02/10/2004 8:52:46 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
"On any given subject there are a few posters who are fixated on it. ... I am foolish enough not to give up."
228
posted on
02/10/2004 8:55:06 AM PST
by
gatex
To: IGOTMINE
Incorrect. The NRA has already stated that they will kill the gun manufacturers protection bill if looks as if the Senate will pass it with the AW rider. Besides, if what you propose happened, enough Congresscritters are pro-gun to kill it in the conference committee.
229
posted on
02/10/2004 8:59:55 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Big Mack
Hamilton and Madison both argued that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights were implicitly protected under the Constitution since there were no power granted the government to take them away. This included the Right to Bear arms.
Hence there was no necessity for the 2d amendment at all and thus your statement is false.
230
posted on
02/10/2004 9:00:03 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: IGOTMINE
P.S. If it DOES get to conference committee, they will only have to sit on it for a maximum of about 2-3 months because the bill will be dead and have to be reintroduced in the new session of Congress.
231
posted on
02/10/2004 9:01:35 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: freeeee
Unfortunately there is considerable disagreement on what our rights are. Jesse Jackson thinks there is a right to health care, housing, food etc. We have no voted to agree with him as of yet.
How many rights do you think there are? Hamilton and Madison were opposed to the BoR because they feared it would be used to limit the rights of Americans rather than protect them.
232
posted on
02/10/2004 9:03:05 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
"Hence there was no necessity for the 2d amendment at all and thus your statement is false." Please tell us what gun rights would exist without the Second Amendment.
And please tell us why some of the states with the most restrictive gun-control laws do not have a Second Amendment in the State Constitution.
233
posted on
02/10/2004 9:03:38 AM PST
by
gatex
To: El Gato
I think that's what I said. There's nothing in the law that states absence of liability for a defective product.
To: justshutupandtakeit
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.Umm NO.
The "spat" of gun control laws stopped when the Republicans got control of the house in '94. It had nothing to do with who was president. In fact, the Republicans actually acted like Republicans for the most part when Clinton was in office. So maybe we could expect the Republicans to grow some spines if a democrat were to take office?
To: Yo-Yo
"MOLON LABE" this about covers it all.
236
posted on
02/10/2004 9:12:23 AM PST
by
JamesA
(Stand up, stand together or die as one.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Really! I didn't know that the NRA had veto authority.
The bottom line here is you have to trust the Republicans to hold the line on this issue. I equate this trust to Charlie Brown believing that Lucy will hold the ball for him to kick.
237
posted on
02/10/2004 9:13:08 AM PST
by
IGOTMINE
(All we are saying... is give guns a chance!)
To: freeeee
Of course, I can read the 2d amendment and understand exactly what it means. Since the militia was considered to be every able bodied man the amendment means that every one of them had the right to keep and bear arms. Illinois' constitution makes that explicit even while allowing their disarming.
It is false that the gun-grabbers believe the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." That is NOT their argument. Rather their argument is that the militia is what has the right to keep and bear arms not individual citizens. That is NOTHING like what I said.
Even during the Revolutionary War the failures of militias were obvious (except against Indians.) Washington was driven to distraction by their unreliability, ineffectiveness and tendency to run like rabbits when the fighting started. That is why he created the Continental army. Today a militia would be even worse.
238
posted on
02/10/2004 9:13:16 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
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. You've got the emphasis wrong. "being necessary to the security of a FREE state.". You also have a problem with English grammer. The main clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's up to the people to decide if and how those arms shall be utlitized.
Early militias were as likely to be controled by cities and towns, rather than the State government, some were independent of all governments. In any event, the militia are the people themselves, or at least the male portion thereof, just wearing a "different hat".
239
posted on
02/10/2004 9:17:33 AM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: Dead Corpse
When did Smith side with the "anti-war pacifist libertarians" ?. Got a link?
240
posted on
02/10/2004 9:18:16 AM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 661-672 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson