Assault weapons ban back in play; Feinstein tries to get reluctant Congress ...

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb 9, 2004 | by Edward Epstein

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you do not know much about the history of the Vietnam war. If you did you would know that Russian and Chinese were not showing up in captured armed until the war was well underway certainly not when the French were fighting it.

Ho Chi Minh created his military structures fighting the JAPANESE that is why he was initially armed by the US.

Communist revolutionaries were not militia. Guerrilla fighters are not NECESSARILY militia either.

[freeeee]

Our national security will not be compromised by a renewal of that ban

Sure it will.

Bush signs ban ==> loses office ==> war effort suffers.

His supporters would do well to impress that upon him.

The choice W has to make is: Does he do his best to defend the country, or does he sacrifice that in order to deprive his countrymen of their liberty?

[justshutupandtakeit]

When I stated that the catagory and law were fraudulent you accused me of taking a page out of the gungrabbers book. If you meant something different I am all ears.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Never once "justified" any such thing. Refusal to work against Bush for signing one is not the same thing as "justifying" it. Geez

What do you do like read every other word or every other sentence and just make up the rest? Then launch an ill considered attack based upon that? Are you learning disabled?

[justshutupandtakeit]

On another thread you were claiming that that ruling showed that the BoR applied to the states when it is just the opposite. If I misread your contention please rectify my misunderstanding. I don't refuse to be corrected when shown to be incorrect wrt something another has said, unlike you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Joining Bush's enemies.

[tpaine]

You stated:

-- "Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government" ---

-- An outright admission that, to you, our various levels of government are not bound by "shall not be infringed"..

Yep, even morons like you can see that, -- and that the rest of your reply is just another moronic repeat of the well refuted positions you've been spouting here for two days..
Give it up, gungrabber.. Your crediblity will never recover from this thread.. You've blown your cover & burnt your bridges..
504 tpaine

If there is a more dishonest poster on FR I have yet to run into him.

Belied by all the times I quote you, in virtually every post.. --- Those quotes prove you are dishonest, not me.
Unable to refute your own words, you then attack me.. It's a pitiful ploy but its the only one you have..

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.

Sure thing.. I can see you winning hearts & minds everywhere on this thread, in your imagination.

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

You can't quote/prove any lies from me.. Yours are scattered all over this thread, and have been proven by many here, not just me.

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

As I commented before, you seem to glory in making incredible remarks.. -- Feel free to continue.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Is that post supposed to show something other than your posting skills?

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have no idea why you would get such an "impression" but it is false. I had career air force brothers, brothers in the navy and a son NOW in the Navy. I revere our veterans which is why I don't want to see the sacrifices of those in Iraq and Afganistan thrown away for trivial reasons by throwing Bush out of office.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Then I will rectify my statement to say that no more such laws were passed out of Congress after Bush became president. And he did clearly oppose new ones.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I was merely refering to the justification given in the 2d for protecting that right. Blame the founders for putting it there.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Then it is not socialism. Regulated capitalism is not socialism. These are distinct and well defined concepts.

[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..
591 tpaine


_____________________________________



Never once "justified" any such thing. Refusal to work against Bush for signing one is not the same thing as "justifying" it. Geez

What do you do like read every other word or every other sentence and just make up the rest? Then launch an ill considered attack based upon that? Are you learning disabled?
-624-

______________________________________


Geez? In your own words throughout this thread you back up the renewal of the AWB.
-- I make up nothing, -- I quote your words back at you constantly to prove my points, -- and you deny, & deny..

Your denial is truly a pitiful sight.

[radioman]

The ACLU has stopped a court from enforcing a law that prevents a child molestor from living near a school.

What's this got to do with Feinstink and guns, you ask? The Constitution. The same argument that prevents the government from enforcing laws against child molestors can also be used for peventing government from enforcing gun laws.

[tpaine]

This is the case you referenced earlier, tpaine, though somehow you managed not to understand a word of it.
515 justshutupandtakeit

You're getting delusionary. Prove that I somehow 'misunderstood' B v B.
559

On another thread you were claiming that that ruling showed that the BoR applied to the states when it is just the opposite.

How confused can you get? The Barron ruling does not 'show' that the BOR's applied to the states, any more than the Dred Scott 'ruling' established anything.. B v B is an erronious opinion by an old man trying to avert civil war.. You clowns misunderstand it, not me. Why are you so obsessed? --- I have no idea, as it was made a moot point by the 14th

But If I misread your contention please rectify my misunderstanding.

Done. Although your ongoing efforts to digress from your support of the AW bill is noted..

[tpaine]

I think it shows you to be spouting BS.

[eskimo]

Joining Bush's enemies.

Not sure what you mean by that.

[looscnnn]

They started out as militia.

[looscnnn]

"Our national security will not be compromised by a renewal of that ban"

Wrong, it will be another step towards the illegalization of all firearms. That will pose a major problem for national security.

"There is no proposal for amnesty of illegals."

Wrong, what is an amnesty? It is the pardon/forgiving of crime. His proposal will forgive them for illegally entering the country, which is a crime.

"We were not attacked by people who entered the country illegally at any rate."

Maybe not, but they were here illegally. They had overstayed visas, thus they were illegal aliens. His proposal would also forgive/pardon them. Sorry, he needs to push enforcement of current laws.

[looscnnn]

"When I stated that the catagory and law were fraudulent you accused me of taking a page out of the gungrabbers book. If you meant something different I am all ears."

Again, what are you talking about?