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.

[Mortimer Snavely]

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

Why don't you just draw a dotted line on your neck, hand our enemies a large straight razor, and point to your throat, saying "cut here?"

Bush, no doubt unwittingly, has turned on us on this and many, many other basic conservative issues. It should be obvious to all who follow these things, that the GOP regards its core constituency as a bunch of lobotomized, castrated house pets lolling around in the sunny patch of the living room carpet, useful to the extent that we occasionally fetch slippers and newspapers or catch the odd mouse. They can do anything they want to us and we are expected to look up in wistful, craven affection, awaiting the occasional pat on the head.

Somehow, someway, people think that a person can be a conservative by advancing a statist agenda, that superficial differences in style and rhetoric between the two parties are the same thing as actually having substantive, fundamental differences in world view.

Believe all that if you want.

Bush will do nothing, nothing to confront or refute the liberal-socialist axis, nothing to protect RKBA if documents to abolish it reach his desk, and will then have the absence of mind to describe all of it as vague, undefined "good things for America," and people will excuse it all, believing that he is motivated by good intentions

The entire situation is enough to make one spew.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thank you for a constructive and informative post.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Won't happen.

[gatex]

"Nothing in the second amendment indicates it to be directed AT the state ..."

What does "...shall not be infringed ..." mean ?

[justshutupandtakeit]

You have to penalize the right party. Punishing you for something I did will not work.

[CholeraJoe]

I emailed Senator Burns about this matter and here is his reply:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding gun control. It is a pleasure to hear from you.

Gun control is always a hot issue and whenever it's brought up, I know I'm in for a battle. I believe that we need to enforce current laws and provide for stiffer penalties and more aggressive prosecution for existing firearm laws. Intervention needs to take place on other fronts as well such as in homes, churches, and schools.

As you know, I don't support gun control, and since first being elected to the Senate, I have fought long and hard against all gun control legislation. I will continue to do so. The Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, yet, especially in recent times, we've seen proposals that attempt to infringe upon that right. Taking guns away from law-abiding Montanans will not do anything to deter crime.

My votes are votes cast to stave off the inevitable landslide of heavy gun control legislation that is sure to keep coming our way. All the laws in this country are no substitute for parents instilling good, solid values and morals in their children. Adults need to be responsible and set good examples, not only to children, but also to one another. As a parent myself, I know how important involvement in a child's life is.

Bottom line is that we need to protect lawful gun owners without imposing overly burdensome regulatory requirements that infringe on our Second Amendment rights. Many people in Washington have got it all wrong. The way to prevent gun violence is to take guns out of the hands of criminals, not to put a gun to the head of honest gun owners. Rest assured, I will continue the fight for our constitutional freedoms.

Thanks again for contacting me. Please don't hesitate to call or write with any other questions or concerns you may have. If you have an opportunity, please visit my web site at http://burns.senate.gov for updates on issues of importance to Montana. When you visit my web site, you can also view my most recent e-Newsletter, an e-mail report that I regularly send from Washington, and you can add your name to the subscription list if you wish.

Sincerely,
Conrad Burns
United States Senator

[Travis McGee]

Here's the latest RKBA prototype sticker for free downloading and eventual mass production. Another possible top line is THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Yet another top line is DEFEND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, along with DON'T TREAD ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT along the bottom. Any suggestions?

[img]http://www.umesde.umes.edu/facstaff/mltaylor/MODIFIEDSHOOTERX.jpg[/img]

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

"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. ..."

_____________________________________



Who are "the people " in the Second Amendment, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ?
174 gatex


______________________________________


The members of the militia which was stated as a justification for the 2d.


Is the "people" the same as "an individual person?"

Wonder why the amendment was not written to say "...the right of citizens or inhabitants?" This isn't a trick question. Do you have any idea why that particular wording was selected?
279 justshutupandtakeit

---

Thus.. -- You claim "the people " in the Second Amendment, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, --- are only comprised of "the members of the militia which was stated as a justification for the 2d".


Obviously the people referenced in the 2nd are the 'People of the United States'.
-- It will be intreresting to see you dig yourself out of your own "trick question" hole.

Two bits you won't even try to explain yourself on that howler..

[xsrdx]

NRA Anti-AWB Website

SUNSET THE AW BAN

[Travis McGee]

Whoops, wrong format.

The goal is to produce millions of these, samizdat "Sore/Loserman" style.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton and Madison (the two greatest experts on the meaning of the Constitution) both claim that the Constitution itself was a bill of rights and does not include the power to remove the people's guns.

State constitutions are not the same as the federal one and are no guarantee of anything. Illinois has an even more explicit guarantee of the individual's right to bear arms yet I can't own a pistol in Chicago.

Dependence upon a piece of paper for guarantee of rights is fruitless even such a great one as the Constitution.

Only when the minds of the people are determined to protect Liberty will it be protected.

[eskimo]

He is not in control of the Senate. Blame the Senate for its actions not the Executive. Maybe you have him confused with a dictator.

Perhaps he has him confused with ta leader in a constitutional republic.

[gatex]

"You have to penalize the right party. Punishing you for something I did will not work."

I was referring o punishing the politicians who promote gun-control.

[gatex]

"-- It will be intreresting to see you dig yourself out of your own "trick question" hole. "

I'm anxiously waiting.

[Lazamataz]

I have a rare free afternoon today. :o) I'll see if theres anything I can do.

Harpseal sends his warm regards. All is well. :o)

[IGOTMINE]

W has fulfilled every one of his campaign promises. He promised to reauthorize AWB if it gets to his desk. The media will raise the hue and cry...probably starting in May. The Million Moms will be heard from again. The Repubs will cave, again. It will get to his desk and he'll sign it, appeasing people who wouldn't vote for him anyway and slamming his base, again. (CFR and Immigration reform are two examples of such behavior.)

We can go back and forth on this for weeks. Time will tell.

[spunkets]

"Illinois has an even more explicit guarantee of the individual's right to bear arms

Nonsense, the fed Bill of Rights forbids infringement. The IL constitution guarantees it. Notice the clause in the grabber state's constitution, "subject to police powers".

"yet I can't own a pistol in Chicago."

Now do you understand why IL law supports the prohibition?

[gatex]

"Only when the minds of the people are determined to protect Liberty will it be protected."

I sorta thought that is what all the posters were trying to tell you.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Your name says it all. However, I, like many, many others will NOT "just shut up and take it"!

[eskimo]

W has fulfilled every one of his campaign promises.

That is the problem here. Stupid party groupies kept screaming that that was a ploy to get elected and that we would have more conservative government. They and the rest of America have been screwed by political oportunists and I pray to God that will never happen again.