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.

[gatex]

"Trick questions" are tpaine's specialty not mine.

Au contraire --- see post 445.

[freeeee]

Thanks tpaine.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My understanding is not the point since I do not get to impose it upon anyone. What is the point is the understanding of the various courts which deal with this question.

[TigersEye]

They would also demand a list of Republicans to hunt down and destroy for the good of the collective. Sean Penn and Michal Moore would lead the mob.

Right. Micheal Moore would applaud the bombing of American cities?!?!? You are possibly the most delusional poster I have ever seen. Very amusing to read.

[eskimo]

I like to provoke discussion.

As do I.

[justshutupandtakeit]

So you will return to supporting the RATS by default. Not too clever.

Only two teams can play you can join one or the other. There are no real neutrals.

[gatex]

"I like to provoke discussion."

Could you discuss "the people" in the Second Amendment and several other places in the Constitution ?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Supporters of Team America support the man who has led us to two huge victories against its enemies and who will continue to fight them tooth and nai. They don't allow the assumption of power of a man who will weaken the nation in every way and push every policy they loath.

Supporters of Team America are not petulantly threatening to take their ball and go home because their every play is not called.

Nor are they threatening to deliberately fumble or throw an interception.

[Mortimer Snavely]

After reading your equivocation on RKBA, it is painfully obvious that Bush's stated plan to OK a renewed AWB should it reach his desk is of no concern to you.

You also portray yourself as a conservative. You also claim to represent the vast majority of conservatives. Saying that this is so is not the same as it actually being so.

You neither persuade nor convince. You can merely regurgitate or echo the current party line, and evade reponding to criticism by categorizing such response as trying to mollify those predisposed towards Bush.

You are a positive hindrance to RKBA, and this makes you one of "them," one who positively encourages everything and everyone destroying this nation.

[tpaine]

You are simply belied by your own words again. You deny your own comment , quoted below, written at # 279..


Thus.. -- You claim "the people " in the Second Amendment, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, --- are only comprised of

#279 -- "the members of the militia which was stated as a justification for the 2d". -- #279

Obviously the people referenced in the 2nd are the 'People of the United States'.
-- It will be interesting 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..
-308-

[eskimo]

I like mine hot and naked and I like to keep one in my pants.

Yeow! Sorry I started that; well, actually Laz did.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The myth of the "conditional" ratification has been refuted on some of the Civil War threads. States did ratify with the understanding that a BoR would be appended.

See Madison's letter to Hamilton during the NY state ratification convention wrt the idea of "conditional" ratification. He claimed it would not be valid and that once in the Union always in the Union (unless an amendment was passed allowing withdrawal.)

[looscnnn]

"Those who propose self-defeating tactics are not real conservatives quit pretending."

I think you should listen to your own words Moby.

[tpaine]

Typical cornered weasel tactic.. Thanks for outing yourself yet again.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Actually, "Bushbot" or "Status Quo" would fit you just as well.

[afamily]

Bush is spineless when it comes to using the veto pen.

Off course it will come to his desk and just like the campaign finance bill he'll sign it. He doesn't care about our constitutional rights, he only cares about power.

He sold out our free speech rights in the name of campaign finance reform. And he'' take away our second amendment rights in a heartbeat if it will benefit him politically.

The only way we can win any of these battles is to find 3rd party candidates to vote for so that the republicans loose power. That is the only way they we will get their attention. We must strip them of their power!

[Charles Martel]

Bush not signing this bill will not mollify most of these critics.

I think that's an overstatement. Certainly, there is some overlap among those who want to give Bush the heave-ho because of runaway spending, CFR, etc., and those who simply want him to allow a putrid piece of Clintonian legislation to die. If the AW Ban renewal lands on Bush's desk and in a surprise move, he vetoes it - there will be mollification aplenty. I don't hold out much hope for that scenario, but that's the result I'd expect if Bush did the right thing, rather than the politically expedient thing.

To me, the far bigger question is this: Whose votes does Bush *really* expect to GAIN by signing that AW ban renewal? I seriously doubt that many proponents of the AW Ban were Bush supporters in 2000.

[looscnnn]

"Soviet defeat in Afganistan was only possible because the mujadeen were supplied and equipped and trained by the Super powers."

You contradicted yourself with:

"Professional armies employ planes, missles, tanks, artillary, aircraft carriers and submarines. There is no prospect of that type of force being serious countered by modern day militias even with assault weapons. Be realistic."

The mujadeen did not have planes, helicoptors, tanks, carriers or subs. They did not have any real artillary, some mortars, shoulder mounted missles and guns. All the things that the modern militia can get/make.

"Military activity today is a huge industrial concern which puts forces into place and provides enormous quantities of supplies, machinery, fuels to those forces. That kind of technology can only be countered by similiar forces it is only harassed by light forces such as militias."

History contradicts you, Soviets vs. Afganistan & French/US vs. Vietnam.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No, I don't say just vote for the GOP. I am referring specifically only to President Bush. No man so hated by those whom I loathe is an enemy of America rather it is the opposite. There are plenty of GOPers whom I would not vote for including most in Illinois.

In Vietnam the US military was fighting a war wherein there was no intention of winning. Any enemy of America will not restrict its military as the politicians did ours in Vietnam. Nor was it true that there weren't organized military units from N. Vietnam fighting our forces as well as the paramilitary units used behind the lines.

There will be no need for anyone to fight our military this is just more hyperbole. Any forces fighting Americans will be foreign.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Al Queda is bewailing just that as the intercepted letter clearly states. It is recognizing that its attacks are not shaking US resolve though if a RAT gets in he might well pull out and allow the crazies to take charge. This would be just one of the unsupportable costs of removing Bush.

The mujadeen in Afganistan were funded from without, supplied with equipment and advanced armaments from without and provided trained fighters from without. It was an international effort covertly supported by the US. In addition, the political price to the Soviet leadership was too high for it to pay. Having little hold on the loyalty and support of the population it did not have the moral authority to accomplish its purpose.