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]

"What Super power will side with the American militias? "

Members of the US military would in certain situations.

"Which one will supply them with training and Stingers?"

Many of the militia are ex-military, thus they were already trained. Stingers? Ever hear of improvised munitions? Ever hear the saying "when there's a will, there's a way"? If they had to go into machine shops and build their own weapons, they would.

"Maybe you are unaware that the French were beaten in Vietnam because the North had an army which was supplied with weapons by the U.S.A. Half the armaments readied for an army of 1 million to invade Japan was diverted to Ho Chi Minh's forces after WWII. The other half was sent to Korea."

So the US built AKs? Boy you just keep piling the crap.

"Nor was the Viet Cong a militia. These were paramilitary forces armed and supplied from the North backed up by the North Vietnamese Army. Most of the "Viet Cong" were former refugees from the North introduced into the South by American policy during the 50s, they weren't Tonkinese or native to the South"

Who ran the supplies in the North? The militia were the ones that hauled it along the trail while the regulars fought. The militia was also involved in ambushes, etc. How did the North form their army against the French? By first starting with militias.

[justshutupandtakeit]

At all times the war was directed from Washington and before Johnson was fought almost entirely by CIA. There never was a good plan to win that I am aware of.

Not understanding who we were fighting didn't help.

[looscnnn]

" you believe that the weapons covered by the AWB are really assault weapons."

Were do you get that idea?

[justshutupandtakeit]

A militia is not the same as Communist infiltrators trained and supplied from the North. Those cadres were hard core communist revolutionaries not local people. Nothing like a militia.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Militias are locals the mujadeen were recruited from all over the Islamic world. Look at Bin Laden, you don't think he was Afgani do you?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Mine too. I was outraged by that obviously provoked event.
Had Koresh been guilty of anything he could have been arrested on the streets with little effort.

[eskimo]

"Lust for glory"? WTF you talkin' about, Willis?

Give us your preferred analogy then for that which motivates unscrupulous political opportunists?

[justshutupandtakeit]

If there is a more dishonest poster on FR I have yet to run into him. Not that I care much since anyone can see your desperate attempts to put words into my mouth and twist the ones I actually say. Those are the only folks I am concerned about not you.

Keep on lying it hurts your causes and helps your opponents.

I am not interested in credibility in your eyes that would mean I join the ranks of the dishonest and deluded.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course, that has nothing to do with what I said.

But your practice is to address talks to yourself to me.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is no one's right to force it upon the unaware now is it?

Just turning on a media source should not immerse one in a bucket of slime.

There is no absolute free speech.

[tpaine]

--- the point of the militia and the 2d amendment was to protect the State from its enemies. It is not just some arbitrary protection of rights but to protect a Free state otherwise the militia would not have even been mentioned.
--- the idea that a ragtag bunch of "militia" with no training and no advanced weaponry could defeat a modern army.
Few things are more laughable.

275 posted on 02/10/2004 10:34:26 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit


justshutupandtakeit then wrote:
What Super power will side with the American militias? Which one will supply them with training and Stingers? Uh, none.

---

Ever occur to you that people allowed to keep & bear "advanced weaponry" wouldn't need the help of a "super power" to keep themselves free, hotshot? -- Hmmmm?


Really man, your frantic efforts to justify renewing the AWB are getting ludicrous..

Give it up..

[justshutupandtakeit]

I rely upon Washington's opinion.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There was no such implication.

[eskimo]

Oh this is petulance at its worse.

What is.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't approve on gun control laws and some of the other ones he has signed but am not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water and return the real enemies of freedom to power. This seems to be the approach a rational man would take.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Always willing to be educated wrt those amendments' importance just never have seen much indicating that they were. The exaltation by those who see them as some kind of panacea may provoke excess on my part but I don't believe they were ever meant as much more than a sop to the anti-Federalists.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yes, I know and agree with the NRA in that respect.

[Charles Martel]

I don't think it an overstatement at all. There has always been a sizeable clique here which has opposed him from day one and they are some of those threatening him again.

We disagree. Yes, there has always been a "clique" which opposed him, but by and large that did not include the people for whom the 2nd Amendment is of bottom-line importance. Bush is begging them to join the party, though, and for no good reason.

Nor do I think it to be political expediency which would cause Bush to sign this bill. I think it is because he does believe that vetos should not be used for much of anything but for legislation that is outrageously unConstitutional. If this law has been held as constitutional already then it doesn't fall into that catagory.

Bush has known that this was a political landmine waiting to be stepped on since the early days of the primaries. If he chooses to step on it, so be it.

Certainly his enemies will not be converted.

I'm not Bush's enemy, but he might yet try to make one of me. All Bush needs to do to earn my vote is avoid doing this one foolish thing.

[tpaine]

El Gato
You are correct. We know the "assault" weapons catagory is fraudulent.
441
______________________________________

looscnnn wrote:
Hey justshutup, you are really starting to show that you might be a "seminar caller".

______________________________________


justshutupandtakeit wrote:
Huh, you believe that the weapons covered by the AWB are really assault weapons. Most of the experts on arms around here don't.

---

Bizarro. Mr. Non-Sequitor stikes again.

[ought-six]

"Training is even more important today since the type of weaponry is far more sophisticated and the gap between the ordinary citizen and soldier far greater."

I get the impression you don't hold veterans in any high regard. Believe me, what we were trained to do and what the troops today are trained to do is virtually the same, aside from some technological advancements that really won't impact how an urban fight is conducted, nor would it have much noticeable affect on isolated elements.