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.

[eskimo]

I love guns as much as anyone but I love my country more and don't equate the two as some around here seem to do.

Tell us, how is it you plan to defend your country when those with guns decide to take it from you?

[justshutupandtakeit]

The reason the 9th and 10th have been ignored is because they are so vague as to be useless in legal terms. They were a sop to the anti-federalists and no one expected that they would have any value other than to mollify opposition to the constitution.

The most conservative members of the Court have been the most active in limiting and circuscribing the reach of the 4th amendment.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have no objection to removing the rights of the criminal classes and other felons to owning guns. This is not an idea I try to hide.

[bc2]

it occurs to me midway through reading this thread that the arguments "justshutupandtakeit" uses to keep 2nd Amendment activists on the GOP teat are the same that Democrat elitists have used for years to keep fine black folks dependant on that party, as well.

best regards,

[justshutupandtakeit]

Where did you get the idea that one cannot support Bush AND urge removal of most gun control laws?

[justshutupandtakeit]

I never said that they were.

[ought-six]

Oh, puhleeeeze. Just because several of us are not kool-aid drinkers doesn't mean we are "Rat operatives." I voted for GWB in 2000, and did so proudly. I grit my teeth with CFR; I gagged with his surrender on the judicial nominees; I sh!t when he proposed the greatest spending disaster in U.S. history; but I started to draw the line when he proposed amnesty for 12 million illegals. If he doesn't veto AWB, forget about it. He won't see me pulling the lever for him in November.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sorry but the Court ruled early on that the BoR didn't apply to the states. My reading of them is like yours but the USSC did not agree in 1833 (I think.) Certainly blacks were not allowed to arm without their owners consent in the South.

[eskimo]

Where did you get the idea that one cannot support Bush AND urge removal of most gun control laws?

Where did you get the idea that I questioned such a possibility?

[tpaine]

You've been touting it this whole thread.

[walden]

I think there's a LOT of this kind of stuff on the web-- in fact, I'm pretty sure I've been on a site that had a number of these pseudo-party-operatives (in fact, I think there are some here.) But, the ones on the other site were pretty transparent, in my opinion.

The anonymity of the web promotes this kind of stuff. You could never get away with it in real-life organizations where people truly get to know one another, because it's too hard to maintain cover.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress made no law abridging freedom of speech. Anyone can say anything they want at any time. However, government licenses the air waves and that allows it to restrict certain activities wrt to elections. The ability to regulate elections is in the constitution.

You can get on a street corner at any time and say anything about anyone. You can print newspaper ads in the same manner. However the public ownership of the air waves introduced an element never thought about by the founders.

That aspect of the law is a tiny element of it and easily avoided so easily that it is hardly an abridgement.

[bc2]

You are delusional. First of all, of course the gun grabbers are afraid of an armed populace. Why in the hell else would they outlaw "assault weapons" handguns, .50 cal sniper rifles that can penetrate the armor of their limos (so they say) etc. You're crazy if you think otherwise.

And as far as militias defeating an army, well the American one defeated the mighty British army, and some jihadis armed by the Americans defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan so don't say it can't happen.

You are nothing more than the Republican version of the limo liberals who keep black folks on the Democrat plantation all these years later. I for one have had enough.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not true I am trying to argue that defeating Bush is the surest way to remove even MORE 2d amendment rights. I have said not one word denigrating the amendment or its supporters except to the extent I believe they are undermining it.

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "Congress made no law abridging freedom of speech. Anyone can say anything they want at any time. However, government licenses the air waves and that allows it to restrict certain activities wrt to elections. "

Wrong and not very clever.

Even you know that "speech" is not limited to that which is spoken aloud on street corners. The federal monopoly on use of the airways in no way entitles the government to restrict speech spoken into a microphone.

As for the suggestion that the government has some special power to restrict "certain activities" with respect to elections, the First Amendment makes clear that it has no such power to include speech in such activities.

[Darksheare]

Well, the rabid rats out in the barn are safer because I cannot get a folding stock onto my ruger carbine.
But I can still pump kerosene vapor into their holes and blow them up(and the barn unfortunately- but hey, it needs remodleing.)

[freeeee]

The reason the 9th and 10th have been ignored is because they are so vague as to be useless in legal terms.

Now this is hilarious.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's so self evident, even a highschool dropout, even the most obtuse mental slouch can't escape it's crystal clear meaning:

All non-enumerated rights are prohibited to the fed.

Anyone who cannot fathom such a simple and essential element of the design of the republic has no business holding any office higher than dog catcher.

The real reason why the 10th is ignored is painfully obvious: It sharply limits the powers of the fed, and the fed doesn't respect any limits. The 10th is the lynchpin that holds together the design of the republic. Without it, the entire design and scope of government is fundamentally altered. Ron Paul introduced a bill requiring all bills to state exactly where in the Constitution the fed derives the power to pursue the law. In a rare moment of candor, John Glenn said that would preclude 90% of what they do.

Do you honestly think the fed would give up the massive apparatus, the immense budget, the far reaching control of one of the largest governments in the history of Earth, just because their founding charter said they should? Hell no! They'll just do what they want and ignore it, and explain it away in some tortured legalese. Vagueness has nothing to do with it.

The most conservative members of the Court have been the most active in limiting and circuscribing the reach of the 4th amendment.

Yet another reason I'm a Libertarian.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

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


The reason the 9th and 10th have been ignored is because they are so vague as to be useless in legal terms.
They were a sop to the anti-federalists and no one expected that they would have any value other than to mollify opposition to the constitution.

362 posted on 02/10/2004 1:22:06 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit


______________________________________

Busted again in clearly stating the 9/10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless.

[Blue Scourge]

agreed, it will be on Bush's desk. As of late I seem to have doubts about many of the (R)'s in both houses of Congress.

[freeeee]

Yes, the analogy of blacks and Democrats is valid. Here's another one I thought up:

< Husband smacks wife > "SMACK!!!"
< Wife > That's it! You've finally gone too far! I'm leaving you!
< Husband > Oh yeah? Go right ahead. Go back to your old crackhead boyfriend - see what that gets you. I'm the best thing you've got baby, don't you ever forget that! Now get your ___ back in the kitchen and fix me dinner before I blacken your other eye!
< Wife > (sobs) Yes dear...

"This message brought to you by the Republican Party, which reminds gun owners to get back in the kitchen, before you really make us mad."