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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

A strong executive devoted to the National interest is crucial in times like these.

You are dreaming if you believe there is any likelihood of an armed revolt against the federal govenment. It will never happen. We could not even get a majority of the popular vote for Bush a far better man than Al Gore and had just elected perhaps the worst character ever to inhabit the White House.

Unfortunately the RAT agenda reflects the desires of probably a majority of the electorate. And some on this thread are willing to assist its implementation out of their pique with Bush.

[gatex]

" But unless terrorism is confronted now it will be almost impossible to eradicate in the future."

But unless gun-control is confronted now it will be almost impossible to eradicate in the future.

[El Gato]

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?

Indeed it is. As active as any bill languishing in committe can be that is. It will never be passed as a standalone, but if she fails in getting it attached to this bill, there are many others she can attach it to. The original ban passed as part of the omibus Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.(H.R.3355).

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those who complain that it is too hot then jump into the oven are not role models for anything rational.

[tpaine]

"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-


___________________________________


Backwards. It is silly hyperbole to think that an AWB will contribute to restoration of a constitutional "real America."

[gatex]

"Of course, I can read the 2d amendment and understand exactly what it means...."

But you haven't answered the question about what "the people" means.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The haouse has already voted once to repeal the AW ban on a vote of 239 to 179. NOBODY except the most extreme anti-gunners want this bill to pass. The GOP knows that this is the breaking point and that the NRA WILL NOT endorse Bush if he signs the AW extension.

The GOP may be wobbly and stupid, but they aren't so stupid as to throw away the White House to appease a tiny minority of people who would never vote GOP anyway.

[El Gato]

The best of both worlds. That Rove's a genius, I tell ya.

Yeah, the same kind of "genius" advisor Bush's Daddy had ensuring his re-election.

[justshutupandtakeit]

We don't have an election cycle to play around with. The murderous Islamaniacs will not call time out while another RAT weakens the military, strengthens the UN and plays havoc with our intelligence capabilities.

I don't understand your willingness to punish Bush while claiming to rely on a GOP Congress which would have been the ones to have passed this law in the first place. He seems to be unwilling to veto anything and I don't like that but he is also the best leader who could possibly be elected today and that is the important factor. THAT is the most important consideration.

Those attacking him for various failings while claiming to be conservatives remind me of a football huddle where all the players are refusing to listen to the quarterback because they don't like the play called. It is a sure way to ruin the team and lose the game.

[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

Okay. We've always gotten along. No reason to blow that now. :o)

[CaptSkip]

"...so it passes in the senate but dies in the house?"

I don't think the "sunset" of the AWB will be stopped in either the Senate or House...DEFINATELY NOT in the House.

It only takes one legislative branch to keep it off the President's desk.

"...Pelosi's claim to grenate launchers is wrong becaus grenade launchers are regulated by a different law right?"

"Destructive devices" have been controlled by law in the US since the '30's/'40's, IIRC.

[IGOTMINE]

"The GOP may be wobbly and stupid, but they aren't so stupid as to throw away the White House to appease a tiny minority of people who would never vote GOP anyway."

Only a tiny minority wanted campaign finance reform.
They will do what they think is politically expedient to maintain power. Let the media start banging on this drum again and they'll give it up like prom queens. Again.

[NRA2BFree]

And if it gets there, bet the house that he'll sign it. Consider it a rerun of CFR. If the Second Amendment is abolished, it will happen in a Republican administration. This is what happens when the president stops being an American and starts being a globalist.

Sadly, I agree. Republicans? Just another name for traitors!

[Monty22]

The climate is different now. CCW laws have really changed a lot of attitudes about gun rights. There's not the ban mentality that we had in the clinton years.

I think the media would even get backlashed against if they went anti-gun at this point.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You will have never seen, nor will you ever see any statement by me that the Constitution is not relevent.

The initial meaning of the 2d was that the Federal government could not infringe upon that right. States could and did infringe many, if not all, the rights mentioned in the BoR. Now they are applicable to the states.

It is also not an absolute. States can disarm certain individuals. Felons are not allowed guns, inmates in prisons are not allowed arms.

Your view or my view of unconstitutionality are not the operative definitions of the term.

It is a bad law and should not be reauthorized but to turn against Bush on this issue is folly considering the alternatives.

[El Gato]

There's nothing in the law that states absence of liability for a defective product.

That's true, but there is something that states the continuance of liability for a defective product. A positive statement, not just an absence of a negative one.

[freeeee]

Of course, I can read the 2d amendment and understand exactly what it means.

Then you may want to retract this statement: "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.", as it is contradictory to the purpose of the 2nd.

every one of them had the right to keep and bear arms. Illinois' constitution makes that explicit even while allowing their disarming.

Could you elaborate on this? It appears contradictory.

Even during the Revolutionary War the failures of militias were obvious

Even if they didn't win battles they cost the enemy resources and contributed to the war effort by attrition. Secondly, there is some good evidence they deterred the Japanese and Russians within the last 60 years. Thirdly, their effectiveness or lack thereof is utterly irreverent to the RKBA which stands on its own as an unalienable right.

BTW, your post #124 was a cheap shot.

[El Gato]

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.

If push ever came to shove, the modern militia would not be fighting the Army, part of it probably would be part of the Army. They would be fighting the politicians. Which brings up the dirty little secret that the Constitution violating critters shouldn't be worried about assault weapons, most of which are chambered for relatively puny rounds, but rather things like M-1A1's or just plain old bolt actions, anything from K-98 Mausers to Moison-Nagents, to standard "deer rifles", chambered in something akin to 30-06, 8mm, .308, .303 etc. Something tha can reach out and touch someone. Those are what they will need to be worried about, should it ever come to "voting from the rooftops".

[justshutupandtakeit]

Unfortunately not all those wrong ideas come from the RATmedia (and no one hates it more than I) but from the entire trust of history for the last 200 yrs. It all sounds so reasonable and proper UNTIL one starts to actually think about and analyse what is involved. This is the problem -far too few people are capable (or chose to attempt) difficult thought and just accept the convention wisdom of the loudest and most determined. THIS is our failing.

Places like FR are so valuable because it allows and encourages such difficult thought. I appreciate it everyday and even those which whom I am in total disagreement. Only through opposition can the truth be realized and for that I thank those in disagreement. What is accomplished by constant agreement?

[Charles Martel]

I cannot understand a strategy which is designed to fail.

Neither can I, but of course I'm referring to Rove and Bush, not the RKBA "Whackos". If George wants to write off a chunk of his support, I guess someone did the math and figures that's the politically smart move.

We loud-mouthed "Whackos" have long been warning about what would happen. That doesn't mean we WANT it to happen, but there is a morbid fascination in observing how these warnings go unheeded. To use an analogy, it's as if the Titanic were sailing along at one-quarter speed, in broad daylight, with perfect visibility, and the lookouts spotted the iceberg while it was still miles away. They communicated their findings to the bridge personally, even handing the captain a pair of binoculars and pointing out the looming danger. Yet somehow with miles of open, navigable waters ahead in which to avoid the hazard, the captain *still* manages to hit the iceberg dead center.

History is replete with examples of what might happen if warnings (and even plain old common sense) are ignored.