Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Assault weapons ban back in play; Feinstein tries to get reluctant Congress ...
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb 9, 2004 | by Edward Epstein

Posted on 02/09/2004 9:03:09 AM PST by Lazamataz

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 661-672 next last
To: Lazamataz
The NRA and the gun manufacturers feel they are close to Senate passage of the bill that would protect gunmakers and dealers from liability suits, a blanket protection given no other industry.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill doesn't relieve anyone from real liability suits. Just protects against frivilous ones. This idiots got his head up his a$$.

61 posted on 02/09/2004 11:19:51 AM PST by kt56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kt56
This idiots got his head up his a$$.

Not at all. The anti-gun media has an agenda, and this is merely some handhanded lying-on-purpose.

62 posted on 02/09/2004 11:23:56 AM PST by Lazamataz (I know exactly what opinion I am permitted to have, and I am zealous -- nay, vociferous -- in it!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DonPaulJonesII
"If President Bush signs a continuation of AWB or a new and more extensive version of AWB, I and so many others will not only not vote for him, but as I have said before, will campaign for the rat. It is my intension that if there is to be a second revolution it will have to be now, before I am too old to pull a trigger or can't remember why I'm pulling it."

Amen Big Mack, Amen!!! I could not have said it any better myself. What the hardcore party hacks have forgotten is that it is the health of the Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution that is of primary importance here. Not which group of liars is in charge politically. If the Constitution has become meaningless, then so has the Union. To me, the resolution of the illegal AWB is the single most important issue. With Republicans in control of the House, Senate and the Oval Office, there is no excuse for the continuation of the AWB. NONE AT ALL. This is the line that I have drawn in the sand

Couldn't agree more with the both of you. I refuse to be stabbed in the back on this one. I've written many emails to the White House flatly stating that GWB will loose my vote the instant he signs this, if it makes it that far.

63 posted on 02/09/2004 11:25:55 AM PST by kt56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, for example, have said they support banning assault weapons. But they have gone out of their way to show sensitivity to gun owners' rights. Kerry, for instance, took reporters and camera crews along on an Iowa pheasant hunt.

Sure, JFK-wannabee, I really believe that people who just finished successfully fighting a bloody and vicious war against the most powerful nation on earth (as well as many of their own Loyalist countrymen) in order to win their freedom (a war effort which, just coincidentally was ignited because of an attempt to seize the arms of private citizens, and which was successfully largely because of the widespread ownership of then-advanced firearms in the hands of the general populace), and who were engaged in crafting the blueprint for a government that was supposed to "secure the blessings of liberty" for their countrymen for many generations, were so silly that they wrote the 2nd Amendment in order to protect the rights of a bunch of gap-toothed, beer-swilling, pot-bellied, cousin-marrying rednecks to kill Bambi's and Donald's relatives - NOT!!!!

If Kerry, et al were so freaking sensitive to gun owners' rights, they'd at least entertain the notion that the 2nd Amendment has not got a single thing to do with hunting or target shooting. Until they at least acknowledge that this view is a legitimate one - without necessarily agreeing with it - then no one who is the least bit serious about the rights of current and future gun owners will believe a thing they say. Just in case Kerry is completely ignorant of history (and he well may be, regarding gun rights), the hunting argument was used by several successive kings of England in the 1600's to ban weaponry - the "only" legitimate use for guns was represented to be for hunting, and then there were progressively stricter and wider bans on "killing the King's animals" and, viola, there was suddenly no need for guns - mainly among those opposed to the King, just coincidentally. This wasn't the only time this tactic was used to disarm a populace, but THIS time we are wise to it. If Kerry and the Dems want ANY support from gun owners, they had better understand this and rework/eliminate gun laws that threaten the rights of gun owners. I'm not holding my breath for that.

"Every bill dealing with guns is uphill because of the gun lobby. That's no surprise,'' she said.

That's because gun owners have finally caught on to the incrementalist approach of anti-gun fanatics. We "get it," which is to say, we understand what your final goal is - total abridgement of the right of the average person to defend self, family and liberty, just like in the U.K. today...and we're not going to be suckered by your con game anymore.

The 10-year-old law was painstakingly hammered out to get enough votes for passage. The guns it covered had to meet a so-called two-characteristic test, meaning the weapon could be banned if it had two features from a long list that included items such as automatic ammunition clips, a pistol grip, a barrel shroud or flash suppressor.

To get around the ban, manufacturers simply changed the guns to remove one of the characteristics on the list and kept on producing them.

They wrote a law, and said that if you crossed a certain line that you were in violation of it. Suddenly, it is somehow bad to move right up to that line, without stepping over it. What horseshiite that is!!! It is like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 55, and then complaining that people are driving 55.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has decided "it's not good enough just to renew a law with loopholes that have caused the death of law enforcement officers and helped those who want to commit terrorism,"

First, this is the typical stalking horse that anti-gunners use: that criminals using "assault weapons" are killing hundreds or more of police/innocent citizens, or that they are the "weapon of choice" for criminals and/or terrorists. It is utter BS - the figures prove that rifles, let alone semi-autos, and further let alone the "ugly" semi-autos that so scare these idiots, are in general are used very infrequently in crimes. If they truly wanted to control crime, they'd either ban ALL guns (fat chance of getting away with that) or execute everyone found guilty of 1st degree murder and sexual abuse of any child (since criminals in those 2 catagories who are intentionally or unintentionally released from prison are guilty of many more murders than those even remotely attributable to "assault weapons"). Second, if criminals are doing it, then why does it make any sense to limit the rights of those who aren't criminals? What's next, car control because some irresponsible, self-centered morons are violating the law by getting wasted, getting into their cars and then causing fatal accidents? Message to anti-gunners: Criminals who are intent upon violating laws against murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. ARE NOT GOING TO OBEY LAWS AGAINST OWNING OR USING CERTAIN TYPES OF FIREARMS - DUUUUHHHHHH! That's why they are called CRIMINALS, you f'ing morons!

Oh, and terrorists DON'T GET GUNS AT GUN SHOWS OR LEGALLY THROUGH LICENSED DEALERS - if they can buy full autos without any paperwork for $50 or less in any Mideast or Southeast European bazaar, they sure aren't going to buy semi-autos for $600 or more in a papered transaction - DUUUUHHHHH again, bozos!

Finally, of course, all of the arguments regarding the use or non-use of certain catagories of guns in crime or terrorism completely neglect the most important point - that the law in question is utterly unconstitutional - period! The failure by the antis to even acknowledge this possibility, and their simultaneous push for even more limits on the rights of existing or potential gun owners is actually a good thing - it is like a bucket of ice water thrown into the faces of sleeping gun owners (mostly the "hunting" or "sportsman" type of owner) that the antis are after their guns ALSO. DiFi is at least intelligent enough to understand this - which makes her even more dangerous to our liberties.

64 posted on 02/09/2004 11:41:39 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; All
The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread! ( 1 2 3 )
 

65 posted on 02/09/2004 11:45:14 AM PST by backhoe (My guns protect Your freedoms...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I've written to Sam Johnson, Kay Hutchinson, and Cornyn about this. Everyone else PLEASE contact your representatives! It'll help!
66 posted on 02/09/2004 11:48:15 AM PST by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
BTTT
67 posted on 02/09/2004 12:01:22 PM PST by BulletBobCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Grut
"Stroke of the pen, loss of the land."

More apt.

68 posted on 02/09/2004 12:04:23 PM PST by Jim Cane (Vote Tancredo in '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jim Cane
Stoke of a pen, Dems have it again.
69 posted on 02/09/2004 12:17:26 PM PST by BulletBobCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Grut
How a tiny minority who believe as you do thinks it can do anything but damage the nation is a mystery not revealed to mortal man. FR folks are a tiny minority in and of ourselves but a tiny minority of a tiny minority approaches total irrelevence.

Not only that but that tiny minority would soon be splintered into even tinier factions since some "holier than thou" fragment would soon draw a line in the sand over some other single issue and withdraw from the rest.

If the Islamaniacs are allowed off the hook by the reclamation of power by the RATmedia it would take yrs and many thousands of lives to remove them.

You people have no perspective or sense of political judgment. Bush is the most gun friendly president since RR yet even that is not enough for the Whacko Brigade.
70 posted on 02/09/2004 12:39:38 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
I doubt you voted for Bush in the first place.
71 posted on 02/09/2004 12:41:37 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: IGOTMINE
"Here is how it is going to happen.

The bill to protect the manufacturers will leave the House WITHOUT the AWB renewal.

The bill to protect the manufacturers will leave the Seante WITH the AWB renewal.

The two bills will meet in conference committee, where the AWB renewal will be added to what is sent to W."



why would the AWB bill survive conference?

What eveidence do you have the the House GOP will cave on this issue.

72 posted on 02/09/2004 12:42:16 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
As long as I get to sign the warhead.
73 posted on 02/09/2004 12:43:08 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
I'll give you one guess why I didn't. The topic of this thread is a big hint.
74 posted on 02/09/2004 12:43:43 PM PST by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: kt56
"If President Bush signs a continuation of AWB or a new and more extensive version of AWB, I and so many others will not only not vote for him, but as I have said before, will campaign for the rat."

i can see you staying home on election day, but campaign for the rat???

Maybe this guy shouldent be allowed to have a gun. I mean first of all he is suicidal, secondly he is dellusional as he actualy thinks his campaigning will matter
75 posted on 02/09/2004 12:45:02 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
If the Islamaniacs are allowed off the hook by the reclamation of power by the RATmedia it would take yrs and many thousands of lives to remove them.

Then it seems W has a decision to make:

He can continue Clinton's gun ban - or -
He can sacrifice his desire to do so for the well being of the country in the face of the Islamic threat.

It's all up to him. But he won't be having his cake and eating it too.

the Whacko Brigade

Are you a member of the Million Mom March, or do you just play one on the internet?

76 posted on 02/09/2004 12:49:43 PM PST by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jarhead_22
I am a member of the NRA and have been for yrs. Having been raised around and with guns I have no fear of them nor of the 2d amendment's intent.

However, it doesn't take much brain power to understand that defeating Bush is the dream of our most deadly enemies internally and externally. Nor does it take an Einstein to figure out that any RAT put in his place would remove far more of our rights protected by the 2d amendment than Bush would. Since this is so obviously true I have doubts about what those spouting off like lunatics on this issue REALLY intend. It could not be protecting the RtKaBAs since their tactics and strategy are SO absurd. They lead to total defeat for the positions claimed by their advocates.

As to my screen name, look in a dictionary under "irony."
77 posted on 02/09/2004 12:50:11 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: raloxk
What evidence have I that the House conferees will cave on this issue? I think that question would be better put to the senior staffer that Senator Frist let go this past week over the Memogate scandal.
78 posted on 02/09/2004 12:50:45 PM PST by IGOTMINE (All we are saying... is give guns a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
There is a simple question to answer "Whose agenda will be served by the defeat of Bush?" The answer is NOT "those who love America and Freedom."

However, it definitely is "America's enemies foreign and domestic." Those who cannot see this are beyond reason.
79 posted on 02/09/2004 12:52:58 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: IGOTMINE
"What evidence have I that the House conferees will cave on this issue? I think that question would be better put to the senior staffer that Senator Frist let go this past week over the Memogate scandal."

that doesnt even remotely answer the question. Frist isnt in the House, thank God. I want to know why Hastert and Delay will cave on AWB

80 posted on 02/09/2004 12:57:27 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 661-672 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson