[Joe Brower]

I first saw this article yesterday via Gun News Daily, and when I read it, my first thought was "I wonder how soon this will appear in my local New York Times subsidiary, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune (that's 'SHT' for short)?". Well, there it was in today's op-eds. Fear-mongering scum Tom Teepen, smug and self-righteous, can always be counted on to take a deceitful swipe at both lawful gun-owners and the NRA, and the SHT can always be counted on to print every freedom-hating word he says.

The leftmedia is nothing if not predicable. This is the FOURTH anti-"assault weapon" piece the SHT has published in just THIS MONTH. As anticipated, the statist propaganda machine is incrementally stirring up the mass hysteria that they desire to create in order to continue the so-called "assault weapons ban" of 1994; you can expect the agitprop only to increase over the next year.

[Joe Brower]

[Skywalk]

God what a disgusting pig. Did it ever occur to idiots like this that the NRA membership is in the MILLIONS, and their precious anti-self defense groups' memberships rank in the hundreds or thousands?

And to say they are puppets? I thought we lived in a land where certain people represented some things and where citizens, as groups and individuals, had the right to petition their government.

Of course, ALL guns are made to kill people, "assault weapons" are no exception. But, as with many things, context is supreme in such discussion. As he provides none, except Baghdad, he shows his lack of objectivity.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The knee-jerk "conservatives" think Bush is chomping at the bit to sign the AWB renewal, while the gun-grabbers think he is playing a good cop/bad cop routine to kill it with Tom DeLay.

This won't matter one bit to the idiots who are more concerned with Bush making a "principled (ala John Birch Society) stand" than seeing the AWB sunsetted.

[Space Wrangler]

When Bush voiced support for the AWB, I kind of had the feeling that the fix was in. Now this won't be a campaign issue, or if it is, it will have democratic candidates throwing hissy fits over something Bush had no power over, and make them look just as foolish as they have been for the last six months. 15 more months until high cap clips are back at reasonable prices!!!

[facedown]

Tom Teepen is an idiot.

Carter - America’s Best Former President By Tom Teepen, Columnist Cox Newspapers Atlanta, GA

[Blood of Tyrants]

Attorney General John Ashcroft, throwing over generations of legal understanding, has declared that there is an all but abiding personal right to firearms ownership, not a right pegged to the maintenance of public security, as the Second Amendment plainly says. (So much for "original intent" when it becomes politically bothersome.)

This has to be the most blatant lie in the whole story. The left throws this out there as though the letters and explanations from the founding fathers support the opposite of what they plainly say.

They were the weapons of choice in the crack-cocaine wars of the '80s and early 1990s.

On Miami Vice, maybe.

[Eagle Eye]

They were the weapons of choice in the crack-cocaine wars of the '80s and early 1990s.

Maybe HIS dealers preferred them...

[biblewonk]

Thus Bush escapes any blame for re-arming the nation's nut cases with weapons that can mow down school kids and postal employees wholesale -- hey, he said he'd back an extension, didn't he? -- but the gun lobby gets what it wants anyway.

Boy this guy sure layed his cards on the table with this line.

[zip]

Ping

[trebb]

Gee, even when the Prez does his job EXACTLY as he should, the Dims have to rant. The President is right in saying that he shouldn't interfere with the Congress on this matter. They are the ones that are supposed to represent their constituents. If they don't push the bill through (as much as far too many of them don't believe in the 2nd Amendment) it means that they know that their constituents don't want the controls on firearms and to push it would be to risk not being re-elected. The people need to be more and more active in letting the Congress know that, much as they hate it, their job is to push the will of their constituents, not their own will...

[Timm]

Hilarious.

The left is going to hammered on guns, and I don't think they see it coming. Look at this author. He's willing to repeat all of the tired old canards in this article. The so-called "assault weapons ban" bans "AK-47's". Drug dealers used "assault weapons" as their "weapons of choice" during the late eighties. He doesn't even think he has to try.

Well, it isn't 1993. They can't just repeat their lies and bumper sticker slogans, confident that this is all that's required to get public policy to go their way. They don't realize it yet, though. Another round of, "Surprise Democrats, you live in America"!

[ActionNewsBill]

Understand, these weapons aren't necessary for hunting. Nor are they essential for any other sport purpose.

Why do they always trot out this tired argument? The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or sports shooting.

[Puppage]

with weapons that can mow down school kids

Hmm, LIKE AUTOMOBILES?

[Reagan is King]

I thought it was easy to see what Bush was doing when he said he would sign the AWB. He knew it was DOA in Congress and by saying he would sign it if it made it to his desk he took away the campaign issue from the Demonrats. It was a politically smart move. It's actually nice to have some Republicans in power that have some strategic thinking for a change.

When a liberal jerk like Tom Teepen is having a hissy fit about it then you know it was a good move.

[TheBattman]

Attorney General John Ashcroft, throwing over generations of legal understanding, has declared that there is an all but abiding personal right to firearms ownership, not a right pegged to the maintenance of public security, as the Second Amendment plainly says. (So much for "original intent" when it becomes politically bothersome.)

The left simply will not accept that their interpretation of the Constitution is flawed. As is the case with most Constitutional issues, if you are looking for the intent of the framers of the Constitution, you need to study their own writings and explanations on the subject.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment - their writings are quite clear - personal ownership of arms (yes this includes more than just the body parts!)is essential BECAUSE it insures domestic security. In no way did they indicate any limitation to the ownership of firearms.<P. My personal opinion is - we will see the importance of firearm ownership sometime in the foreseeable future.

[wgeorge2001]

"Thus Bush escapes any blame for re-arming the nation's nut cases with weapons that can mow down school kids and postal employees wholesale..."

Liberal drival.

[Abe Froman]

"Attorney General John Ashcroft, throwing over generations of legal understanding, has declared that there is an all but abiding personal right to firearms ownership, not a right pegged to the maintenance of public security, as the Second Amendment plainly says. (So much for "original intent" when it becomes politically bothersome.)"

Yes, if the "original intent" was proposed not by the founders but by liberal politicos in the 20th century. Any cursory reading of quotes by the founders themselves clearly shows that they were unabashed gun nuts of the highest order.

[paul51]

re-arming the nation's nut cases with weapons that can mow down school kids and postal employees wholesale

Ahh, yeah. That's what we do. What a moron

[Billthedrill]

Vintage Teepen - two parts fiction and three parts contrived outrage. For him it's always a plot by gun manufacturers (filthy capitalists) and a small pressure-group "gun lobby," never the plainly-expressed preferences of an electorate that threw his party out of Congressional majority on the strength of the issue.

It's ironic that the deliberate misinterpretation of the Second Amendment he prefers would actually lead the government to protecting "assault weapons," not banning them. They are, after all, a lot more applicable to the "well-regulated militia" than are squirrel guns. But hey, why cloud the issue with logic and fact?

[longtermmemmory]

look for more of these hysterical articles. They can be usefule because it out those anti-individual rights people. (there is more than just the 2nd amendment. I am also thinking of individual property rights)

I bet this useful idion KNOWS MILLIONS of nra members support the sunsettting. He wants to disarm those people. He wants this to happen because he sees the "gun culture" as obstructing collective rights, socialized "X", US activity in the UN, sustained growth laws, and so on.

Perhaps not literally, perhaps not directly, but its not about individualist to these writers.

I have no problem with Bush playing politics right now. Rove and Bush have produced winning electoral results in 2000, and 2002. We have to electorally cause the extincion of the Democrat party.