Assault Weapons Ban : not any more - its way worse.

NRA ^

[OOPisforLiberals]

All you anti-AWB people : listen closely. The "extended" assault weapons ban would ban TONS of guns, including ALL semi-automatic shotguns, ALL shotguns that hold < 5 rounds, M1 Garand, Mini-14, ALL semi-autos that can have > 10 rounds with or without fixed magazine.

Gives the attorney general the ability to declare a gun "not sporting" and subsequently ban it.

That's right folks, its the big one. They want 'em all. -Still- feel playing complacent about them not taking away your guns? If this goes through, handguns are toast in <= 5 years. 30 caliber rifles next. Then, there's not much left.

Its bad.

[Badray]

. . .and then there was that one shotgun that fell overboard while duck hunting on the lake 5 years ago. hahaha

[Travis McGee]

Strategy has nothing to do with it. In the book the "fed list" is simply one person's way of lashing out at an intolerable situation, when America is sliding into a dirty war of disappearances and assassinations.

The posting of the "fed list" on the internet is several steps down the road after the bogus false attribution stadium massacre, followed by the outright banning of all semi auto rifles, and rifles with scopes.

[Travis McGee]

I'm on the last chapter, at last!

[ApesForEvolution]

She's a communist idiot sinitor that's dumb like a fox...

[danmar]

My friend, do you remember Tom DeLay saying, the bill is dead on arrival?!
So, I do not see why, using such a inflamatory head line, when the whole issue is not true.(maybe by the content of the bill, but not considering, that the bill, it, is a shure passing in both Houses and the President will sign it.)

Let's wait and see what's all about it...than we will deliberate about on it's own merrits, and draw the right conclusions when due. Until then, I will keep the rhetoric low, since it is based on scare tactics.

[Fraulein]

bump for later

[Mortimer Snavely]

Let's all breathe a sigh of relief that Al Gore wasn't elected. Hell, he would have expanded Clinton's gun policies.

[griffin]

Hey there fellow Anaconda handler! :)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Thank you. I didn't really believe that Mr Paul would turn his back on our constitution

He didn't, and he wouldn't. Ever.

Ron Paul was caught between the Tenth Amendment and the Second Amendment on the "gun lawsuits" issue. Ron Paul is certainly not in favor of the idiotic Gun Lawsuits, mind you, as he made clear in his Speech on the floor... but he believes (correctly, IMHO) that the Second Amendment applies to the Federal Congress, and that the Federal Congress has no right whatsoever to legislate on Guns one way or the other -- whether to Ban guns, or to tell the States how to run their business.

If Ron Paul had his way, the only Gun Laws would be those enacted by the States... and soon enough, New York and California would ban Guns entirely, while Texas would probably allow "open-carry" on the city streets.

Needless to say, New York and California would wither on the vine, while Texans would retain their Rights.

Ron Paul is okay with this. He does not support State restrictions on Guns, but in this case he went with the Tenth Amendment -- "Thou shalt not make a FEDERAL ISSUE out of a State's Rights question".

[supercat]

Ron Paul was caught between the Tenth Amendment and the Second Amendment on the "gun lawsuits" issue.

Congress has exclusive authority over interstate commerce; it was given such authority in part to prevent states from restricting it. Since these lawsuits are being filed precisely for the purpose of interfering with interstate commerce, I would think Congress should have the authority to ban them.

Also, per IV.1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." What if Congress declares that judicial actions against gun manufacturers in other states shall be nullified?

[griffin]

Ya know, it really saddens me that this type of bill is even created in this country.

Our beautiful Republic, and this crapola has been formed in it and is publicly presented by individuals that are not afraid to support it.

What has happened to this country? I believe there used to be a time when fools that uttered these thoughts would be tarred, feathered and run out of the building on a rail before you could blink twice.

Now, instead of treating these fools and their ideas the way they should be treated, we are relegated to writing our Senators and Representative in order to encourage them not to support garbage.

I shudder for my country.

On the good side however....there is plenty of time to get in better shape, purchase required equipment, form tight groups of trusted friends, develop communication links and plans, and educate each other on things one should know about....just in case Mr. Delay can't seem to live up to his boasts, and Mr. Bush's pen can't stop signing.

[griffin]

In the ultimate struggle that might occur if this would ever come to pass...even old geezers like Templar, Jeff and Travis could be useful! ;)

Of course that is said with love and respect! :)

[griffin]

ping..

[Badray]

I don't think that I can top that one.

[Tauzero]

" Yes, but wasn't one of the primary purposes to prevent states from interfering with interstate commerce?"

Yes, but you're speaking of a probable motive of the law suits, and not the suits themselves. If you grant someone's motive is sufficient grounds, where do you stop? If all I need to do to enact a law is claim that someone wants to interfere with interstate commerce, then I can enact almost any law. It doesn't matter that we agree about the motive in this case.