How Assault Weapons Import Ban Cost Bush 41 Re-Election

"Unintended Consequences" ^ | 1996 | John Ross

[dinodino]

If he doesn't want to take the heat, he shouldn't say it in the first place.

[carenot]

I think/hope that the "Bush would sign it" leak is a signal to us to get off our duffs and kill the renewal *before* it gets passed, instead of sitting back lazily in the belief that Bush would veto it so why should we bother fighting it?

He didn't veto CFR.
Why would he veto this?
Seems he is taking the Dems' agenda away from them.

[dinodino]

Really! Bush has no intention of vetoing this--he stated his support. Also, the very idea that Bush would play games with our freedom to "signal to us to get off our duffs" is sickening.

[carenot]

Rove sees this coming as an issue that might arise in the campaign. Maybe he's just poking around the edges of it... partly to see how the base reacts, and partly to see how eager the Democrats are to jump on it. By using McClellan, they can always back away from it later.

Hmmmm...How..ah Democratic?
What happened to core beliefs?

[wku man]

Okay, you are hopeless.

"Yes, you did say this, and I'm still waiting for the proof which you have failed to provide. You're heavy on personal attacks, low on substance."

Have you ever heard of/read the Declaration of Independance? The "proof" you seek is in the freakin' Declaration. I did everything but give you a direct quote! I don't have a link to an online version, but go to your local librabry, and I'm sure they'd have a copy there. Geez...did you sleep all the way through your civics class in high school? Yes, in your case, I'm heavy on personal attack, because morons who can't/won't follow a very clear, very easy to understand argument like I've made with you, get to me every time! Sheesh...it's almost like you're being stupid on purpose...a troll maybe?

"An argument is out there, but you are either incapable or unwilling to persuasively articulate it."

And I've made it, time and time again, but you're obviously unable to understand adult English. Maybe they could write a book called "Curious George Reads the Constitution"...

"Again, I'm waiting for your evidence that God gives us the right to own assault weapons."

Well keep waiting, brain stem, 'cause I never said that! Go back and find where I said "God gives us the right to own assault weapons". You can't, because I never said it!!! Okay, I will try to make my point one more time, and hopefully the simplicity of it all will smack you in the face:
1) God granted us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not the right to "assault weapons", but the right to defend ourselves). The "proof" which you seek is in the Declaration of Independance.
2) the right to life, which is granted to us by God, includes the right to defend ourselves and our freedom from tyrants who would deprive us of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
3) these tyrants have guns.
4) because in the Declaration, it is recognized that to protect our God-given rights, governments are instituted among men, our Founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
5) the 2d Amendment guarantees us that we will always have the tools (guns) to exercise our God-given right to protect ourselves (as in the right to life...it is very important for me to spell out for you that, by saying this, I am not saying that God has given us the right to own "assault weapons").
6) at the time of the Revolution, and subsequent creation of the Constitution, the tyrants that would have deprived us of our God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had armies armed with Brown Bess muskets. Today, those tyrants are armed with M-16s, AKs, G-3s, and other military rifles.
7) (Warning! Logical thought needed to understand this point!) Just as the 2d Amendment (not God) guaranteed Americans in 1787 the right to keep and bear muskets, it guarantees us today the right to own semi-automatic rifles (it actually guarantees us the right to own more than semi-autos, but I don't want to overload you...I know all this logic and stuff has to be tough on you).
8) THEREFORE...as I've said many, many times before, and which as yet to penetrate your thick skull, the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, in order to protect our God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from those who would deprive us of those rights. Since those tyrants are armed with really mean guns, the 2d Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear the same really mean guns that the tyrants' armies have.

Why is it that you're the only person on this thread that can't make that connection? Are you really that abjectly stupid, or are you some loser who just enjoys acting abjectly stupid in order to keep an argument going? Or are you a glutton for punishment? Or are you a DU disruptor?

If you're not a troll, and you really don't understand anything I'm talking about, I can refer you to The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, Three Treatises of Government by John Locke, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and other great writings that are part of our founding philosophy. But they're a heckuva lot harder to read than what I've posted to you here today, so I sincerely doubt you'd understand the first paragraph of any of them. I'm not being mean when I say that. If you can not understand the very simple arguments I've made here today, you're better off reading People, Maxim, Cosmo, or TV guide.

"And it's been even longer since you wrote WELL on a third grade level."

Is that you, Pee-Wee Herman, 'cause it sure sounds like "I know you are, but what am I?" Oh my gosh, it didn't even occur to me that you might actually be in the third grade! Sorry...please don't tell the teacher on me! I'll give you my lunch money!

I have a headache, and you've been a big contributor to it. Thanks a lot!

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[wku man]

"I have nothing to prove before man or God, sonny boy."

Ooooooohhhhhhh..."sonny boy". You are sooooo clever, Pooh-Bear. Hurry up and take your meds, 'cause it's almost time for Matlock, gramps. Wipe your chin first, though, it looks like you dribbled your creamed spinach again.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Jesse]

You apparently do not understand the difference between individual self defense and self defense against the government, or the difference between the standing army and militia.

The Second Amendment covers both. Certain weapons are better suited for personal defense against an individual aggressor, and certain weapons are better suited for defense against a tyranical government. Machine guns, handguns, rifles, shotguns are weapons which can be predominately used by an individual, and their effective use is limited to an immediate area. You may not think an Uzi is needed, but most antigunners don't think any guns are needed.

There are obvious differences between guns and other weapons. But as a class, guns are pretty easy to separate out and I think they all should be protected under the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to ownership. Personally, I would include grenades and other certain high explosive weapons as well. These are weapons of last resort in defense, both personal and against a tyranical government, so I do not favor their registration.


Although I do not like to attribute "rights" as something governments have (My own opinion is that individuals have rights, government has responsibilities) the government has certain responsibilities of self defense which require weapons of a higher magnitude...their effects are widespread, and the government has many layers of control over them, such as nuclear weapons. In fact, one could argue individuals do have the right to own nuclear weapons...it's just that the right of use is placed in one civilian's hands (the president).

[carenot]

Then you would have no right to open your mouth if one of the Dems that would force complete gun control on your ass gets in.

If the Rs are doing the same thing, what difference does it make?

[wjcsux]

I don't think the House will allow another AW bill to see the light of day.

[codercpc]

Off subject, but the new Privacy Laws are actually stricter than what we had last week. My guess is that you didn't know the original laws before you read what the VA sent you.

As someone who works in Health Care, I will tell you that whether you knew it or not, you didn't have "much" privacy before. In fact some of the new laws are so strict that alot of doctors were complaining, because if taken literally it would not allow your primary doctor to call your specialist to discuss your case, or forward lab results or test results without you having to sign a release each and every time. You may think that is ok on its face, yet imagine a scenerio in which you are being treated by your specialist for cancer, and he added 5 more pills to your regimine, yet gets lab results back and sees that one of your chemistries is off. If he has to call your primary MD to tell him to change the dose of a different med you are taking, he would literally have to call you down to his office, have you sign a release, before he could call your primary MD.

Alot of the overly restrictive rules were changed before the final draft, but one originally stated that you spouse could not go to your local pharmacy and pick up your prescription for you because it would violate patient confidentially.

I truly think you are looking at the Med Pivacy laws incorrectly, and as I said they are much stricter than what you had before.

[EternalVigilance]

Nor do I.

[dinodino]

I sure hope you guys are correct, but I don't have any faith in our Congresscritters..

[Stop Legal Plunder]

bump.

[wcbtinman]

"But the wingnuts begin to lose me when they start claiming a "right" and a "need" to own a tool that is designed to kill large numbers of people during a war."

If this is all they are designed for, then why does the govt, all the way down to local law enforcement need them?

And watch who yer' callin' a wingnut.

[Possenti]

That's funny, I didn't come across the right to own an Uzi in my copy of the Bible. I doubt that God particularly cares whether you can own an assault weapon.

Our Lord understood the need for His disciples' personal protection when they went on long journeys. Of course, firearms were not around at that time, but the sword was the weapon (yes, I said weapon) of choice for self-defense in those days. This line of scripture illustrates well:

Luke 22:36 (NIV)- He [Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

[wcbtinman]

You might also remember that when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, one of the deciples took a sword and cut off the ear of one of them. Jesus bade the man to stop, but did not rebuke him.

Even Jesus was comfortable around the assault weapon of the day.

[Kevin Curry]

I am certain that there is no convincing your side of how seriously we strict Constitutionalists consider Bush's missteps

I think we're well aware of how whacked you are. And we can certainly see why you and your ilk always fail so miserably to persuade your fellow Americans.

[Kevin Curry]

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

Why have so many laws been passed restricting gun ownership? Exhibit "A," dinodino's statement above, is an prime example. The whackjobs hint darkly about loosing deadly violence on their critics and then wonder why the greater mass of Americans clamor for more gun restrictions.

This "gun in yo' face" attitude has as much to advance anti-gun legislation as anything any quiche-eating liberal has ever done.