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.

[looscnnn]

"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."

Well it's a good thing that they did not get their way, we would have lost all our guns long ago.

[Travis McGee]

Great to hear about Harpseal! Laz, do you have Adobe Illustrator, to make true vector files for print-ready work? For professional silk screening etc, I mean.

(I'll be going to the SHOT Show in Vegas tomorrow, and won't be posting after that until I return Sunday or Monday.)

[looscnnn]

"I equate this trust to Charlie Brown believing that Lucy will hold the ball for him to kick."

Good one, I would not have thought of that.

[Lazamataz]

Do you have the raw components to that image? The things you made it up with?

Could you send them to Laza*NOSPAMBOTS*mataz@yah*NOPE*oo.c*NOT-ONE*om?

[Travis McGee]

Don't forget the possibility of an "assault rifle massacre" at any time in this process, which could stampede Congress.

[Lazamataz]

I've got Paintshop Pro 6.0. I think it has true vector.

[Lazamataz]

One of the things I want to do is make the AR-15 opaque.

[looscnnn]

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

Huh? Listen Moby, face it you are not NRA nor pro-gun. So quit pretending.

[looscnnn]

"States could and did infringe many, if not all, the rights mentioned in the BoR. Now they are applicable to the states."

Except that most states have constitutions with the 2nd added to them.

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

Really? To quote what has been asked many times before "what part of shall not infringe do you not understand"?

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "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."

I was a Demoncrat for 32 years. Infringements of my right to keep and bear arms caused me to align with Republicans to regain my rights. Hubert Humphrey may have supported socialist political schemes but he knew exactly what the Second Amendment was about.

Most of what Bush has done are not what I would wish for my "team". The game cannot be won that way as I define "win".

If Bush signs an AWB bill, then I will cease participating in the game. I will start a different game, with different rules, and with different outcomes.

Though you may not believe it, that will make you and Bush the loser in the game you have chosen to play. Here's the deal: You stop infringing my right to keep and bear arms or you suffer the socialism which you claim to be against.

[Double Tap]

LOL. It seems so obvious.

[eskimo]

justshutupandtakeit said: "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."

The problem is there seems to be a huge variation in the game plan of the party groupies supporting team GOP and the more rational supporters of team America.

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "I will give you the benefit of the doubt and that you are not trying to deliberately misstate my comment which pointed to the obvious point that the Constitution preceded the 2d amendment."

I am unfamiliar with the exact history, but I thought that the nine states which first ratified the Constitution did so only under the condition that a Bill of Rights be appended. Is that not so?

[looscnnn]

"Only in your dreams are liberals terrified of the second amendment"

Really? They are afraid of it. It is what keeps them from assuming total socialist control. Think about it, if they could get rid of all guns they can do what ever they want. What could we do? Vote them out? They will just fill the hole with someone else. You say that we just vote for GOP? Sorry, they have their libs. Look to the past for the answers; Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China, etc. The disarmed citizen is a slave to the government and has no power.

"Oh, I feel real comfrontable at the idea that a ragtag bunch of "militia" with no training and no advanced weaponry could defeat a modern army."

Oh, like the advanced weaponry we had compared to Vietnam? Remember how that turned out?

"Ask the Taliban militia how well it fared against the US military."

See that is were you are off base; first, I would be willing to bet that a large majority of our military would refuse to fight our own people. Second, I bet that there would be a bunch of military people that would side with the people if the situation warranted our uprising.

[looscnnn]

"Husbands, whose wives say they have been threatened and get a restraining order, are not allowed arms. "

You forgot that in some states a petition for divorce does the same thing, even if no threat was made or no history of violence.

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "How ridiculous is the idea that the Soviets could defeat our military and be beaten by a militia? Very ridiculous even absurd. "

What a comfort to know that our military efforts in Iraq are going to be successful. I was afraid that an armed segment of the Iraqi populace which is opposed to us might be able to discourage us into leaving and plunge Iraq into a civil war from which one faction or another would gain power.

I suppose that there is some explanation for Soviet failure in Afghanistan?

[Travis McGee]

This is the site where I found lots of assault rifle images. It's "weapons of the world" or something. RIFLES

This one is the underlying "Naval Jack" with the red stripes, rattler, and "DONT TREAD ON ME." (The server is spotty and X's out once in a while.) NAVAL JACK

I would recommend using the spelling DON'T, because the sheeple in the car behind you is just going to think, "Those gun nuts can't even spell" if you copy it with the historically correct DONT.

You might want to try it with THE SECOND AMENDMENT across the top, and alternatively with THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

Another option is:

DEFEND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS across the top,

DON'T TREAD ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT across the bottom.

[looscnnn]

"Yes indeed. I can just imagine C-130's circling around urban areas in the U.S. taking shots at suspected "militia nuts" as they step out of their homes and businesses and B-150's dropping daisy cutters on their foothills hideaways near Denver, Tucson, Reno, Seattle, etc., etc., etc. The general public will simply rejoice when they see the Strykers and Apaches coming into the 'hood to root out those nasty right-wing kooks who always hang a deer carcass in the garage each fall."

Well, that would be one way to deal with gangs.

[Lazamataz]

k. I'll work on it this afternoon. :o)

[Jarhead_22]

Sorry but I believe many of those screeching anti-Bush sentiments are indeed RAT operatives.

Please remember that we are discussing the Second Amendment to the Constitution here, and that you won't find many Democrat voters lobbying against a renewed or even strengthened Assault Weapons Ban.

Most of the Bush supporters do not "march in lockstep" with him no matter what. Most have disagreements with him over several issues. But most also understand something his enemies don't, there will be no man who is 100% acceptable to them.

You insult anyone who does not march in lockstep with the President, and call them RATs. No one expects 100% congruence on the issues, so this is a straw man argument and doesn't address the issue.

There is nothing wrong with opposing him or even working to bring him down but to do so with the certain knowledge that any successor will be worse seems to be madness no matter how it is framed. Since it seems to be madness and people around here are not mad it means to me that they are not honest and, since they are doing the work of the RATmedia, are likely RAT operatives.

Your logic has holes I could drive a truck through. You define showing the President and Karl Rove that they can't continuously kick their base in the teeth and still count on their votes come November as madness in your needlessly insulting way. Others might see it differently, and count on America surviving four years of a President Kerry saddled with a Republican-controlled Congress as long as the Republican party learns a much-needed lesson.