How Assault Weapons Import Ban Cost Bush 41 Re-Election

"Unintended Consequences" ^ | 1996 | John Ross

[wku man]

"With what you posted, those are the only two options. Pick one."

Couldn't come up with anything better than that? I'm disappointed! After all, I put so much thought into my last post to you.

By the same logic, judging from your profile page, you think you're Homer Simpson. Again, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are, and you're continually proving it. But you know what Limbaugh says (well, maybe you don't), when someone's making an idiot of themselves, the best thin to do is stand back and let 'em. So go ahead...

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[holdmuhbeer]

We need to come up with a way to defuse these one issue Republicans. They say if you don't agree with my one issue, we will keep democrats in power to punish any- one who doesn't agree one hundred percent with my one issue!

Amen, these people are blooming idiots. They're simply stating that they'll vote for a gun grabbing democrat because Bush won't let me have my ak-47.

[Poohbah]

Like I said, I've seen the backstabbing game played one time too many to complacently say "it's just bad GOP leadership not tending to the base."

It happens EVERY time someone conservative gets within spitting distance of winning an election. The same people who vowed to ride the ship triumphantly into the harbor suddenly go overboard--and plant limpet mines on the hull as they do so.

[hobbes1]

Just out of curiousity...what are you planning to do to stop it in Congress? Or are you simply going to demand that Bush wave his magic pen a mere TWO MONTHS before the election, and write off the moderate middle vote? Can you generate ENOUGH votes to get 50% + 1 in enough states to generate a majority of electoral votes, WITHOUT any moderate votes at all? Are you big enough to do that?

I'm willing to bet the answer is "no."

Rove's sending you a message. He's telling you that if you ain't willing to work, Bush ain't willing to risk his neck for your alleged vote. Kill it in Congress--do NOT expect the President to commit political hari-kari for you.

Correct. and wonderfully concise.....

[hobbes1]

Which one is it?

Considering their avowed use of the vote, I would say the former.

[wku man]

Okay, you're obviously a not-too-bright newbie, then. I didn't say God was for guns, and I didn't say the Constitution was a religious document.

God is all for allowing us to defend ourselves. In today's society, we need guns to defend ourselves from both criminals, who have guns, and potential tyrants, who have armies, who have lots of guns. The Constitution recognizes our need to have the tools (guns) necessary to defend ourselves from those who have similar tools (guns). Is that clear now?

I just kind of assumed you knew that the Declaration of Independance is where it's acknowledged that our rights come from Our Creator. God is my Creator...maybe yours is the Maryland State Legislature, I don't know. But, as the Declaration says, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them (ie, not limited to) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Do Maryland government schols teach civics and history anymore? If not, I'd be glad to recomend some good texts to you...oh, sorry...texts are books.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Poohbah]

You write to your Congresscritters and appeal for the extension of the ban

Actually, I'm working to get it killed in committee, let alone before it goes up for a vote.

But you go right ahead and sit on your a$$ (I know you talk about writing for no renewal; but talk is cheap, unless you're hiring a lawyer), and then throw a hissy fit because your Sitzkrieg failed miserably.

People like you, frankly, don't deserve freedom, because that's too much like work for your taste.

[hobbes1]

No amount of kissing Feinswine's ass will win you the leftist Northeast, but it will sure cost you the entire South

There is a small problem with your reasoning.

Edwierd will not win the Nomination, so who is it that the south will throw over Bush for...Sharpton, Kerry, or Howard Dean?

[hchutch]

BINGO!

Some folks forget that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways rebound to our benefit more than others do. Luring the Democrats into THIS fight will send the re-election chances fo a bunch of Dems in the South and Mountain West to FUBAR.

It's going to take a litt work, but it is doable.

[hobbes1]

You have only manged to prove two things.

That Karl Rove does indeed read SunTzu .....

And VPC does not.

A key Sun Tzu principle is that "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

[CWOJackson]

I wonder if the White House is aware of this.

Seems like there are a hundred of so people on FR who didn't vote for the President the last time who are going to vehemently oppose him the next time. How could we have expected this?

I'm beginning to think the term Bushbot means anyone who can't find five new reasons NOT to vote for Bush by noon each day.

[dinodino]

If you speak to people that way in real life, and not just on the Internet, you're looking at a short life expectancy.

[Poohbah]

I do speak to some people like that all the time.

Not one of them has tried--or, as you did, threatened--to inflict harm on my person.

[hchutch]

A bunch of folks seem to have their idea of what a "real" conservative is, and if something not done when they want it, and how they want it done, they go ballistic. I think they are channeling Mikhail Suslov, personally.

[hobbes1]

Save your breath PB. Between this and the Hatch amendment during the Schumer-Kyl bill soiree, I have been convinced of only two things.

The people you are arguing with are long on attitude, and short on intellect, and ......

While arguing with them is kinda like masturbating with a cheese grater (...Slightly Amusing...but mostly painful...) getting them to reason is quixotic at best.

you're right, they're wrong. Deal with it.

[dinodino]

No threat implied or intended. You have not spoken that way to me in real life, nor will you have the opportunity.

[Trace21230]

Actually, your original comment on this issue was as follows:

"I hate to break it to you, newbie, but God did grant us the right to defend ourselves, and our freedom. The Constitution guarantees that right, and the right to the tools we need to ensure we can defend ourselves."

I asked you to cite your source that supports your claim that God is against the AWB. You then did a wonderful impression of Bill Clinton by referring me first to the Constitution (which you later acknowledged was not a religious document) and then to the Declaration of Independence, which states that the Creator gives us rights.

Of course, the point you miss is that the Declaration of Independence does not mention gun rights. Therefore you have failed to connect the dots between "God" and RKBA.

So, the premise of my initial criticism of your assertion that the right to own an Uzi is not "God-given" remains untouched.

You can make another attempt if you dare.

Trace

[dinodino]

Why wasn't Lamech punished?

[hobbes1]

The context of Exodus 22:2-3 is dealing with theft and restitution. Within this discussion of theft, the case of a thief breaking in is presented. In this case law two scenarios are given.

In the first a thief is "found breaking up," that is, breaking in by breaking up the roof, the window, or the door during the night hours. Thus we have a forced entry into the house (or property) that is discovered by the owner. The owner responds to this threatening situation (for in the dark he knows not the intent, identity, or arms of the intruder) by killing the robber, presumably with some sort of weapon. The declaration of God's law is that in these circumstances the owner is innocent of any wrongdoing, and is fully justified in using lethal force to defend himself and his family.

The second instance involves a thief "breaking up" under different circumstances. In this case, it is during the daylight hours, and presumably, the owner can identify the intentions of the intruder and see that he is unarmed and poses no threat to life or limb, but is a mere thief. Yet, in spite of this the owner kills the thief. In these circumstances the owner who uses lethal force is guilty of a crime. This was not an act of self-defense (for he was not attacked or threatened) but an act of brutality against an unarmed man whose only intention was the theft of property. The penalty for theft was restitution, not death. Thus, this is a case of the unauthorized taking of human life, and is, therefore, murder, punishable by death. God's law authorizes the protection of life by deadly force if necessary, but His law does not permit the defense of property in the same manner.

It is important to note that the case presented here of a thief breaking in involves the shedding of blood. Therefore, this case law is an application of the righteousness of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Consequently, the biblical law of self-defense empowers us to defend our lives against wicked men who hate God, His law, and the life of their neighbor.

We may assume that those who threaten us with bodily harm or weapons hold the life God has given us in contempt, and, therefore, we may defend ourselves against such evil even to the point of killing our assailant.

In conclusion, let us consider the implications of Exodus 22:2-3 for the right of self-defense.

1.This case law establishes the righteousness of self-defense. God's law permits a man to defend himself and his family. This defense may require the use of deadly force, and this certainly implies the use of weapons.

2.A man is justified in defending himself whenever he is attacked or his life endangered. If a man is not guilty of any crime for slaying an intruder on the mere supposition that he may be armed or pose a threat to him or his family, how much more does the law of God authorize self-defense against an armed assailant who definitely threatens bodily harm.

3.The primary responsibility for defense against violent attacks is a personal responsibility. The defense of one's life and one's family is chiefly an individual responsibility, not a community or governmental responsibility. (There is no indication that Israel had a standing police force or army. The armed men of Israel, under the direction of their magistrates, were the army and police force.) There is certainly a need to love our neighbor and come to his defense if we can. But the first line of defense against violence and aggression is the man who is prepared to use whatever force necessary in the protection of his own life and those for whom he is responsible (e.g., his family). This, of course, means that he must be armed to meet all possible threats to his life. Today, this requires a citizen to be armed with guns.

4.Any weapon is permissible for use in self-defense. This case law does not say the owner is guilty if he uses a sword, but not guilty if he uses a club. The issue is not one of weapons, but the right of self-defense. God's law does not make an arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable weapons for self-defense. And there are no biblical laws restricting the access of citizens to weapons necessary for self-defense. To limit a citizen's access to lethal weapons (e.g., guns) is to limit his ability for self-defense. Gun control is self-defense control. Who would want to control and limit the individual's ability to defend himself except thugs and tyrants?

5.This case law would be a great deterrence to criminals. After all, citizens are armed and authorized to kill, if necessary, intruders and attackers!

6.This case law also restrains the individual in the use of weapons in self-defense. He must be very careful, lest he use deadly force when it is not called for. If he does he is guilty of a crime, and must pay with his own life.

[hobbes1]

Taken from Here