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."
There is a real chance of that happening. The brief war will be old history in another 1.5 years.
With this economy, the open border madness, that assault on our second amendment and a few other big issues, it could very well look bleak for him in another 18 months. And as far as the economy, I don't know what the hell will ever bring that back. The war sure the hell didn't. And at the rate we are shipping our jobs and companies over seas, it will only get worse.....
More about Liberty than freedom. Something even fewer people understand.
Freedom is self control (making your own decisions instead of government making them), Liberty is a lack of retraint on your freedom. A subtle but important difference. You have the freedom to keep and bear arms, but are restrained in the type of arms you can keep and bear and how you can keep and bear them.
Interesting. Are you saying it would be wrong to walk around carrying such a weapon?
No. Totally in accordance with the Constitution. What I am saying is that while I own lots of so-called AW, I don't walk around with them (CARRY them). It's just not practical. A concealed handgun is much better for carry.
Is someone mad that a skunk showed up at the malcontent garden party?
Now, which one of these weapons is evil? Which one is going to cause you to pick it up, walk out into the bank lobby, and start shooting people?
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution for the present but more importantly for the future...that's why they set it up the way they did, because their knowledge of history and human nature made it clear the inexorable progression of governments towards tyranny, no matter how well intentioned.
Inanimate objects are not evil, and innanimate objects don't cause people to commit crimes. They only facilitate the darker ambitions of evil people in pursuit of power and wealth.
As it only takes a few charismatic individuals with power and the weapons of the time to take control, the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment of the Constitution, precisely so the masses of people in years to come would have the means to protect freedom.
Take away the technology, the cars, the televisions...strip these accoutrements away, and look at the majority of people in the country who make it work and how they live...I would contend that this society we call America is not really so different than it was back then.
So that argument gun grabbers use to justify gun control is not only wrong, but it is a deliberate attempt to destroy the foundation of our freedom based on the lie that like computers, the Constitution is obsolete.
But the truth is the Constitution is a timeless living document, always has been, always will be, as long as human nature is what it is.
Here we go again. "Do you think we should all be able to own nukes? What about MOABs?" Sigh...
There's no rational person in the RKBA community that says we should be able to own NBC weapons, or shoulder-fired missiles. The purpose of the 2d Amendment is that the citizenry will always have the right to militia weapons, with which to resist any tyrannical government that comes down the pike. Militia weapons are individual arms, like the Brown Bess musket in 1775 (don't forget, today is Patriots' Day...228 years to the day saince Captain Parker and his militia fired the Shot Heard Round the World), and the M16 today. They are wepons with which the individual minuteman could stand a chance of defending his life, liberty and property from the schemes of a tyrant, and his army.
I would like to discuss with you my thoughts on how such a hypothetical revolutionary force would come into more advanced weapons such as air-to-air missiles and tanks, but that would be feeding the rabid anti-gun monster that has been prowling these threads for the last week. Suffice to say that we in the RKBA community recognize that the 2d Amendment doesn't give us the right to go duck hunting with a Stinger missile, or fishing with grenades.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Amen, brother!
Scouts out! Cavalry Ho!
No offense, but it shows. Were taking semi automatic rifles here. That is really an ignorant analogy. I don't mean to be harsh, but this story looks so GD bad..... Feinstein and Schumer are nothing but socialist screw worms.
You are kidding aren't you? The first is under heavy attack and no civil hell at all. Remember the part about the free exercise of religion?
Is this meant as a distraction? A diversion? Are you attempting to cloud this issue? SAM launchers? LOL! Get real......Again, we are talking about semi automatic rifles here. Not nuclear weapons and SAMS.
JEZZZZZZ.
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.