Posted on 04/19/2003 7:02:08 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization
- Seek to Work with President to Swiftly Reauthorize Ban, Close Clip-Importation Loophole - April 16, 2003
Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which is set to expire in 2004.
In an article published this weekend, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."
Senators Feinstein and Schumer, authors of the original assault weapons legislation in the Senate and House of Representatives, will introduce legislation to reauthorize the ban shortly after Congress returns from recess. The legislation would:
Reauthorize the prohibition on manufacture, transfer, and possession military-style assault weapons, while protecting hunting rifles and other firearms. Close the clip-importation loophole, which prohibits the sale of domestically produced high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue to bring them into the country by the millions.
Preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons.
In a letter to President Bush, the Senators wrote: "As the original authors of the Assault Weapons Ban in the Senate and the House, we strongly believe that military-style assault weapons have no place on America's streets and should be banned. In 1994, we fought hard to win passage of the original ban, and shortly after Congress returns from the spring recess we plan to introduce legislation that would reauthorize it.
This is why we were pleased to see that your spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated your support for the ban and its reauthorization this weekend when he said, 'The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.'
We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation. The current ban is due to expire in September 2004 and in order to continue to keep these weapons off the streets, it is imperative that the reauthorization bill becomes law.
As part of the reauthorization, we also plan to include language to close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions. A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but got bottled up in a larger conference due to an unrelated provision. You indicated your support for closing this loophole during the 2000 presidential campaign, and now, with your help, we can prevent the manufacture and importation of all high-capacity clips and drums.
Once again, thank you for your leadership on this matter. With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer."
At the time of the founding, it was legal for individuals to own cannon. Which do you think would be more lethal, an AK-47, or a muzzle-loading cannon filled with grapeshot (basicly turning it into a huge shotgun). The Constitution has explicit provisions for privateers (privately owned warships with rows of cannon)
Do you really think it's a good idea for anyone to be able to buy a machine gun? That would fall into this argument.
The Israelis have every 18-year-old citizen being subject to military service. These reservists keep their full-auto Uzi's, M-16, and Galils with them when they go home. You don't hear of any problems with that happening -- only with Palestinians
The Swiss also have universal military training, and their reservists ALSO keep their weapons at home (with a full combat load of ammo). Again, you don't hear of any problems.
My friend went to Romania a year ago with his wife to visit her family there. He told me you can buy a full-auto AK in the store for about $120. You don't hear of massacres in the streets in Romania
Your middle-class neighbors are not the problem. They can be trusted with firearms. The drug dealers and gang-bangers are the ones committing most of the violence. They will get guns regardless of the laws. Jamaican gang members in England (an island with draconian gun laws) get into shoot outs with machineguns that they somehow smuggle in (probably disguised as a routine cocaine shipment)
Gore won here after backing off of gun licensing and a genius radio ad countering Kyoto saying that if we don't have alternate cars, the JAPANESE(by name) would have them. He also sent Tommy Lee Jones to say that Gore wouldn't take the guns. Gore got 40% of the gun vote and won Macomb and Monroe, although he lost the normally democrat UP.
It was a smart 1-2 punch, and because Gore won here, I think even Kerry could win here, and Dean especially could do it.
*SIGH*
The assault ban does not actually deal with assault weaponry. We are not talking about machineguns. The fact that this is a constant problem in talking about this proves that the assault ban piece of propaganda has got to go. The propaganda is successful because it has everyone talking about semi-auto rifles as if they were machineguns.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: If you become Attorney General, will you maintain the Justice Department position in support of the assault weapons ban?
JOHN ASHCROFT: Yes.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Will you support its reauthorization when it's sunsets in 2004?
JOHN ASHCROFT: It is my understanding that the President-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapon ban, and I would be pleased to move forward with that position, and to support that as a policy of this President, and as a policy of the Justice Department.
And then, when the next dem president bans "sniper rifles" (large calibre, scoped rifles), or semi-auto pistols, or whatever, the next Pubbie Prez will still get your support when he let's it stand so the issue "can't be used against him". If we allow the "rachet effect", and let dems increase restrictions when they're in office, which are then forever left in place, then we lose over the long run.
We only keep our 2nd Amendment rights when we FORCE Republicans to roll back restrictions whenever they are in power, as the condition to their remaining in power
As the Waco saga was unfolding, I was seeing increasing talk on the Net (at the time much smaller than it is today) about organizing a mass march on Waco in protest of the seige. A peaceable, but armed mass march. I think that's what freaked out Clinton and Reno into ordering the final assault -- they did not want to risk this spiraling out of their control
I know a case where a weapon-owner killed over a hundred people in a restaurant, the worst mass-murder in the US prior to 9/11. The weapon he used was a large Molotov cocktail (gasoline bomb)
Do a search for "Happyland fire"
Also remember what Tim McVeigh was able to do without a gun.
Also remember 9/11 and what a few box-cutters could do
I remember having a conversation with a secretary at work, and freaking her out by pointing out that anybody who paid attention in college chemistry, and who had a couple thousand bucks for supplies, could take out the office building we worked in.
Yes, it seems there are always folks out there who expect the hired help to do what they were hired to do. And who become "malcontents" when a "friend" sides with the enemy.
But hey, as long as it's George Bush [genuflect when you say that], it's okay. At least it's not some Democrat!
If I didn't think your "special issue" was important, would I be asking you to explain it?
Do you have a line in the sand when it comes to the type of weapon people can have access to? ~~ Machine guns? ~~ Missles?
Seriously, do you believe "exercising a right" can ever cross into chaos?
Yes, for slavery.
I stated that machine guns have been illegal for MANY years and it's not a real issue, regarding this article or thread.
An argument being advanced is that the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" applies to any kind of firearm, and therefore the Assault Weapons Ban is unconstitutional.
Well hells bells professor, that's what is says.
But that's not whats being advanced here.
This is about President Bush supporting or signing a specific law, backed by socialist, communist and other anti-Americans.
I'm arguing that modern weapons require some perspective...and as you've stated citizens don't walk the streets with machine guns.
I didn't state that, I stated that machine guns have been illegal for many years.
Since that's true,
Since what is true?
it's reasonable to question whether citizens require semi-automatics.
Says who? Why is it reasonable? Because communist, socialist, and freedom hating people say so?
LOL.....Thanks for the laugh....
I guess I should have been more specific.
I meant that as a general statement. As in, it's illegal for a citizen to go to a swap meet and buy a full auto weapon without jumping through 500 government hoops....
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.