OUCH: "White House Favors Renewing Gun Ban"

Gun Owners of America ^ | 4/14/03 | GOA

[Search4Truth]

It could be part of his political strategery, to give the Liberals this meaningless victory. I do not believe Bush fears an armed America, as the Liberals do.

[Mister Magoo]

No, it hasn't changed anything, of course. I would like someone to explain why the ownership of these weapons are so vital. If one goes to

http://www.awbansunset.com/whyown.html

here's their rationale for allowing the law to sunset:

"Military style rifles are well designed and very reliable. They are fun and economical to shoot. They can be easily “customized.” They are accurate and they can also provide an effective defense for yourself and your loved ones.
The real question should be: Why wouldn’t you want to own one?"

Proponents of the repeal of this law will have to provide better rationales than this.

[ez]

The purpose of the law is to maintain a well-regulated militia. To be effective, that militia should be armed with whatever military-style firearm is common to the times in which he lives.

That includes the M16, the AK47, the HK91, and all other military rifles commonly in use today, IMHO.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

This is just Bush playing smart politics. He can tell the stupid soccer moms he was for extending it and then let the House kill it by never bringing an extension up for a vote knowing that (MOST of) us gun owners are smart enough to see a beautiful political move when it is played.

The left isn't believing this story about him wanting to extend the AWB so why are some gun owners? I guess when a dog is beaten for so long he tends to flinch at the slightest movement.

[El Gato]

This will probably get me kicked out of the club, but, in all honesty, is this a big enough issue to go to the materess on? How has it really changed anything?

Other that cutting down on the number of gun owners because of the increased prices? Actually it's the principal, and the slippery slope, if they can ban one class of firearms, why not another. In fact they are tyring to do that too. .50 caliber (or larger) rifles. Now that's pretty arbitary, so latter they might lower that to .30 caliber, if the weapon in question "can accept" a scope or scope mount. (Which means all of them of course). After all, who needs a gun that can shoot someone a couple of hundred yards away, they'll say. Killing bambi is not a sufficient need, ITHO of course (T=Their). Meanwhile if they can ban greater 10 round magazines, why not 6, as HCI originally wanted, or 1 for that matter. If a heat shield makes a shotgun evil, why not a ghost ring sight or a sling? These things don't have to make sense you know, and even the current restrictions don't (How are bayonet lugs, not merely bayonets, dangerous to the public?) The second amendment says "arms" without any qualification. It's part of the Constitution I swore to uphold and defend, and I'll keep on trying to do that as best I can.

[Mister Magoo]

So you argue that, if the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the Assault Weapons law as it stands today, it would most certainly find a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle to be an arm within the scope of the Second Amendment. Perhaps you live in a much more dangerous world than I. Given today's climate of “political correctness”, such a ruling, despite its apparent historical correctness and its logically elegant simplicity, would surely ignite a political firestorm.

[ez]

Given today's climate of “political correctness”, such a ruling, despite its apparent historical correctness and its logically elegant simplicity, would surely ignite a political firestorm.

No doubt. Emotionalism triumphs over pragmatism amongst the under-educated.

Still, if we are talking about original intent, and even based on the findings in Miller, it would be difficult to argue that an American did not have the right to keep and bear a modern military firearm.

FReegards...

[Sir Gawain]

Plenty of time to run and hide before Bush kills the law and proves they're liars.

Smart move. The president will prove them liars by lying himself if he kills it. Brilliant strategery!

[bybybill]

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I have owned guns for 15 years but I still don`t how this law changes my life as a gun owner. If this issue causes you to vote against Bush, I have to wonder if you are responsible enough to either own firearms or vote.

[bybybill]

...owned guns for 45 years...need new glasses

[Jael]

Sure. Why shouldn't you go to the mat over it?

[El Gato]

the ban ends, does that mean that HK91's, semi-auto FAL's, SKS's, etc. can be imported and sold again? And does it mean that pistol mags will now be sold with factory high caps?

Not necessarily, and yes. The import ban was originally done by executive order under the "sporting purposes" test of the '68 Gun Control Act. The pistol mag ban, for domestically produced pistols at least, is a direct result of the AWB. I seem to rememeber that the AWB made the executive order a part of the law, that is it banned import of the same weapons, but in any event it had that effect, since they couldn't be sold.

[El Gato]

What, you're telling me that the Assault Weapons BAN doesn't actually BAN them?

Very cute, but meaningless. The Ban is on sales of newly produced arms, as you know full well. Lots of magazines were made right before the ban, plus they weren't covered by the executive order banning imports, so they could continue to be imported if produced before the ban. Someday though the supply will run dry. I guess a ban that only affects your kids is OK, right?

[Dane]

For the Ugly Gun Ban to be renewed, the authorization (a new law, in effect) has to pass both the Republican-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled (and much more conservative, despite what this press release says) House.

Exactly. In 99 after Columbine, Feinstein and Schumer pushed through a gun control bill through the Senate, it dies in the House, a fact left out of this press release.

But what the hey the GOA has to keep those contributions coming in.

[bybybill]

OK, but you have to win in Congress first. Do that and you will have GWB`s signature. What bothers me is that Bush needs to win big next year and bring lot`sa our guys to Congress. Why threaten and divide now?

[Servant of the Nine]

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I have owned guns for 15 years but I still don`t how this law changes my life as a gun owner. If this issue causes you to vote against Bush, I have to wonder if you are responsible enough to either own firearms or vote.

It does not affect me either. I stocked up on everything to be banned before the bill passed..

However, since the second amendment says a well ordered militia is necesasary, a Federal Law that makes ownership of military type weapons illegal, is the grossest possible afront.

I think that it is more important to train the Republican party to pay attention to gun owners, than it is to have George Bush serve a second term. It is a lesson that should stick for generations. SO9

[El Gato]

Proponents of the repeal of this law will have to provide better rationales than this.

So now we have to provide "rationales" for demanding that our rights be respected and more importantly for the Rule of Law, that the Constitution be followed. Following the Constitution is not just something for the Courts to do, but rather for everyone in government, including state governments, elected or not. All are required, by the Constitution itself, to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and we should insist that they do just that.

[El Gato]

I would like someone to explain why the ownership of these weapons are so vital.

What part of "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

[Shooter 2.5]

I'm sure there are a lot of collectors and hunters who have never owned a semi-auto but that doesn't stop them from knowing that the next law will be aimed at them.

If you owned guns for 45 years, are you a hunter? The reason I ask is I have owned firearms for a while and have never hunted in my life. If I'm hungry, I go to a fast food place or the supermarket.

Try reading a little Ben Franlin. He said "we have to hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately". Give it some thought.

[SevenDaysInMay]

"Compelling State interest" is the excuse for the eventual nullification of our Constitution by our rulers. We are to be allowed only those rights which favor the power elite. Their "living" Constitution will ensure the death of our American republic.

The power elites want more power and protection from those they rule as they enjoy the national plunder.