Assault Weapons Ban Picks Up GOP Support

Yahoo! News ^ | Tue, Feb 24, 2004 | AP

[TigersEye]

Let's put a nice fine point on it. Anyone who supports the Ugly Gun Ban has no respect for the Constitution.

[Dead Corpse]

Tracking this through the Senate over on this thread.

[blackie]

The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

[.30Carbine]

- .... . / - .-. . . / -.-. .- ... - ... / .- / .-.. --- -. --. / ... .... .- -.. --- .-- / .. -. / - .... . / ... ..- -. ... . - .-.-.-

[rintense]

I hope and pray you are right.

[Darnright]

"Senator Warner is from Virginia. This may be his last term. As bad as he is on RKBA issues, I wouldn't be surprised if our current Governor Warner (D) replaces him - which would be a disaster for those of us who are also fiscal conservatives and who believe in the Right to Life."

Oh, GAG! Mr Ed in the Senate? Surely we can find a good, conservative replacement.

[07055]

You convinced me that I was wrong. Thanks!

[Travis McGee]

One of these two is going to be made into larger hi-res car stickers. Which text do you prefer?

[DMZFrank]

The AWB is directly about the RKBA.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.

[Constitutional Patriot]

"By calling it an Assault Weapons Ban, they set the terms of the debate---who could be in favor of ordinary people owning fearsome Assault Weapons (which most people think must be machine guns)?"

These are the tactics created by the communists. The DNC are good students of Lenin and Marx.

[SevenDaysInMay]

I am in Texas, but about to on the move among several regions.

Vote early and often, like other criminal alien motor voters.

I am saddened that so many sheeple want to convert America into a Politburo's Law of Rule command economy with swarming 3rd World millions corrupting our unique way of life and liberty, crowding and contaminating our natural resources, and on their relentless crime spree.

Defend our Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic. They are numerous, acting under color of law, armed and too willing to use deadly force against citizens, but they are outnumbered thousands to one of us, peaceful, lawful Constitutionalists, probably long a Big Brother hot button word.

FLEO JBTs, white collar career pretenders, and Lon Horiuchi wannabees must decide whether they will defend our one lawful Ratified Constitution or if they will simply follow rulers' orders from Concord Bridge II through Antietam II, Mecca's murders, a million skirmishes to Yorktown II on into our flyover million square miles of Nurenbergs X, if they are lucky.

Islam shall make mischief with nukes; D.C. and millions may vaporize, but our Constitutional Republic's Rule of Law shall prevail because We the People shall prevail as we lose count of the craters.

The 21st Century politics will be a revolutionary and its warfare Biblical. Power over people is on the line.

Fascists and islam can only prevail with the Law of Rule. Both dogmas must eliminate any who compromise their grip on power over people. If in doubt, please read history and the koran.

[Triple]

I like the second one - RKBA It avoids the discussion about the menaing of the second amendment, and the militia.

Maybe 'the people's rights to keep and bear arms' at the top?

Thanks for asking. Best Regards,

[TigersEye]

That's a tough one, Travis. They look great, I'll say that, but that wasn't the question. ........

As one who appreciates the essence of the issue I know that the 2nd Amendment is what can or cannot be altered by men. The RKBA is forever ours no matter what is said or written. I think Triple is right; to avoid the sophistries of 'Constitutional interpretation' being brought into the message, the 'RKBA' version cuts the debate off at the root. KBA's is a Right and treading on it is a lethal risk.

That's a message I can get behind. Though I'm sure that everyone posting here already knows it that message is not sent as a threat or even a warning issued in anger. It is simply a warning that says "I will defend myself and I will use whatever means I can. If you seek to deprive me of the means to defend myself that is a threat unto itself."

An unarmed man is whatever the powers that be choose to make of him. Subject, slave or corpse.
Institutions of authority have yet to make kings of any of them.

[Travis McGee]

Well said.