Posted on 06/14/2004 11:41:38 AM PDT by 45Auto
“The Senators and Representatives shall … in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1.
It’s Okay to Lie In Congress The preceding excerpt from the Constitution is our origin of what is called legislative immunity. It means that if Dianne Feinstein prefers to lie while carrying out her job as Senator, we cannot hold her liable. Furthermore, if her dishonest comments are quoted by the New York Times, it is given an aura of authority. If other newspapers use quotes from the NYT, often called the paper of record, in their own articles, pretty soon it becomes gospel truth, because you can read it just about anywhere.
Dianne Feinstein sent this in response to a request she uphold the very Constitution that protects her from arrest for using her position to lie about firearms.
“Thank you for writing to me about the Assault Weapons Ban. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter and welcome the opportunity to respond.
In 1994, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Bill, which was signed into law. One provision of this bill banned the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons for a preliminary period of ten years. Since 1994, it has become even clearer through chilling examples, such as the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado and at the Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, that military-style assault weapons are a danger on our streets and to our children. Semi-automatic assault weapons which fire up to 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds and without warning are weapons of war that do not belong on the streets of our communities.”
She combines the terms “semi-automatic” and “assault weapons” together. True assault weapons, meaning military-grade firearms, are fully automatic, and have effectively been outlawed for civilians since the National Firearms Act of 1934, though you can still purchase one if you find an older version for sale and can pass a licensing review by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. (Good luck, as the BATFE is decidedly anti-gun.)
In practice, the law focuses on guns which have cosmetic similarities to fully automatic military weapons. The term is so vague that the Fresno, California, District Attorney sued the state attorney general over the confusing state assault weapons ban. (1) “Assault weapons” is becoming so general a term that most semi-automatic handguns are included.
Let’s look at what she doesn’t say about the Columbine killers. The two murderers broke 19 existing laws, including using straw purchasers to buy guns for minors, manufacturing and possessing explosive devices, and manufacturing a sawed-off shotgun. (2)
She assumes that the two mass murderers would have been stymied by lack of available firearms and not seek out the black market. She also assumes they would not focus their efforts into making and installing more effective explosive devices, which would have raised the death toll.
The JCC murderer had also violated existing gun laws, being a felon on parole. As such, it was illegal to possess a firearm. (3)
The next Big Lie is “semi-automatic assault weapons which fire up to 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds.” Only fully automatic weapons are capable this type of dispersal, and they are rarely used in crime. (4)
Feinstein also ignores other pertinent facts:
Between 1977 and 1997, states with citizen-friendly Right to Carry (Shall Issue) laws averaged 25 fewer multiple victim murders than states that did not trust their tax-paying citizens the right of self-defense in public. (5)
In states without Shall Issue laws, there have been 15 school shootings between 1977 and 1995, but only one in Shall Issue states. The five school shootings in 1997-1998 occurred after the 1995 Gun-Free Zones law banned firearms within 1,000 feet of schools. (6)
These omissions highlight the manner in which gun control advocates seek to slant the discussion by omitting the costs of gun control laws, and ignoring the benefits of trained, law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights for self-defense and community protection.
Feinstein: “Unless acted upon by the United States Congress and President Bush, the assault weapons ban will expire, as scheduled, in September 2004. On May 5, 2003 I introduced a bill, S. 1034, which would reauthorize the assault weapons ban for another ten years. The success of this bill depends on support from the House, the Senate, and the Administration. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have both publicly stated their support for an extension of the ban, and I intend to hold them to their promise. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to fight for this important legislation.”
Feinstein has warned us: call and write your Congressional representatives and tell them to stop any renewal or expansion of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban.
Gun Control Means Confiscation “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Feinstein wants us to believe mass murderers would be stopped if law-abiding gun owners were disarmed. If gun-banners wanted only some “reasonable steps” to insure that people were protected from accidental gun death and gun violence, why are they still asking for more gun control after 20,000 gun laws? They cite new “loopholes” that allow criminals access to firearms. (7,8) They justify it with the mantra “If it saves one life, it’s worth it.” But they never factor in the costs of not owning a gun for personal protection, nor the lives saved because a physically weaker woman shot and killed the man who was stalking her with intent to kill, or the children who still have a mother. (9)
Nor do they talk about the costs to society when civilian firearms are confiscated, such as what is happening in Britain. (10)
Nor do they mention that no study has concluded that the 1994 Assault Weapons ban (17) or that gun control laws reduced crime. (18)
So why do they continue wanting more gun control?
Confiscation Leads to Mass Murder It is curious that law-abiding gun owners are considered guilty without any evidence showing their culpability in crime, but national governments, with ample evidence to the contrary, are still assumed to be the most able protectors of the people.
Rudolph J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of the University of Hawaii and author of numerous books on the depredations of governments, has a web site (13) packed with data covering what he calls democide: “The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.” (14)
Following are some facts relating to governments which disarmed their people as a prelude to democide.
“The Soviet Union appears the greatest mega-murderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these.” (15)
“In sum the communists probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. (15)
Professor Rummel estimates over 35 million people were slaughtered by the Chinese Communists. (16)
“By genocide, the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, "euthanasia," starvation, exposure, medical experiments, and terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps, the Nazis murdered from 15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people…Among them 1,000,000 were children under eighteen years of age. And none of these monstrous figures even include civilian and military combat or war-deaths.” (17)
What Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all have in common is civilian disarmament. They banned the people’s guns first. Then, in their arrogance and self-righteousness, they began to remove the “undesirables.” These are only the most heinous examples. Professor Rummel documents the democide of over 170 million civilians in the 20th century, a common thread being civilian disarmament.
Via email interview, Professor Rummel reported a variation of confiscation: “For the Khmer Rouge, there was no general gun confiscation, but anyone found with one was murdered on the spot.” Khmer Rouge killed “only” 2 million. (18)
“[Include] Turkey's genocide of the Armenians and Greeks. Weapons were seized beforehand as part of the step-by-step implementation of what the Young Turks planned in the highest councils.” During the WWI era, Turkey murdered 1.5 million of its Armenian citizens. (18)
Conclusion Every despot had a “reasonable” explanation for their power grab. Communism was supposed to free the little people from the depredations of nobility and industrialists. It ended up merely changing terms, from peasant to proletariat, murdering over 100 million along the way. Hitler wanted to create a superior human race. He ended up being instrumental in causing the deaths of tens of millions.
We are now faced with a reality check. There is no proof that civilian disarmament reduces crime. On the other hand, civilian disarmament is proven to lead to increased crime and genocide. Given the nature of those who seek to gather power unto themselves, there is no third option.
It is time for you to choose. Call your Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote against any renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Standing in line behind some old crusty Korean combat Vets to spit on her coffin is something I would consider an honor.
Of course, I would probably puke on it instead of spit on it.
(Communists can realy get my gut wrenching.)
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
DiFi el al swore to "protect and defend" the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. They have not upheld their oath. They are all, therefore, TRAITORS!!!
I posted a link to a document in 10 that seems to have a direct bearing on the constitutional aspect of the AWB. Care to give it a look and tell me your opinion? It's kind of wordy, and the meat of it looks to be down in the numbered sections, particularly the first two points.
So far we have been fortunate not to suffer a dire emergency that tied up law enforcement and emergency services to deal with a specific problem where the public at large are left unprotected. In a terrorist attack the enemy would like nothing more than violent a criminal wave cutting through the communities while authorities deal with a major attack.
Man, we can't even do anything about senators that kill young women in the back seat of their Oldsmobile let alone assualt on a right.
Actually "assault weapons" are whatever Congress (and the Million Marching Morons) say they are. The official DoD term is "assault rifle", which is a select fire, (ie full auto or burst fire, plus selectable semi-auto) weapon firing an intermediate power cartridge. Examples would be the M-16, and the AK-47/74 series. It doe snot includ any pistols or long guns firing pistol cartridges (those would sub-machine guns if fully automatic), long guns firing full power cat ridges (i.e. M-14, G-3, FN/FAL, etc) or any kind of handgun. The term Assault Weapon, as defined by that PoS law, includes semi automatic (ONLY!) versions of all of these.
The "older version of NFA weapons only need be older than 1986, and getting past the BATFE's screening is no big deal, it's no different than that now required, under the Brady Abomination, to purse any firearm. What's difficult (other than coming up with an extra $200 ) is getting your local Chief law enforcement officer, or other local official, to sign off on the fact that you are an upstanding citizen. Many will not regardless of the facts, unless you can come up with some serious "campaign contributions". Others are more than happy to sign for you (most Texas Sheriffs for example). Of course in many states there are state laws against possession of full auto weaponry.
Of course, I would probably puke on it instead of spit on it.
I had another "bodily fluid" in mind myself (but not a precious one :) )
While she is slimebag of immense proportions, you need to read that Constitution. It defines treason, and the definition does not include oath breaking. As much as I think that's too bad, but there it is.
Just another example of the deliberate misinterpretation of the word "regulate(d)". It meant to make to function properly. The AWB and all federal gun control rather than being attempts to promote or facilitate interstate commerce are instead restrictions on it.
AWB
RKBA PING............
As used by the gun grabbers in Congress, the Commerce Clause of the constitution is nothing more than a fig leaf to get their unconstitutional infringements of the RKBA through. After all, this is the same Congress that used the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify the Violence against Women Act and the Gun Free schools Zone Act, both of which were shot down by the Supreme Court. You can't impute any honest motivations in this regard to ANY gun control scheme that Congress comes up with under this rationale.
That's exactly right. And without it, it is not a valid exercise of power under the Commerce Clause.
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.