Don't waste your time chattering to about how it can still be done if they just pull the language you don't like out of the bill.
I take it that you therefore support national gun registration.
The next time some Islamofacist scumbag pulls off a major attack in the U.S., anything you and others who helped kill it may have to say will fall totally on deaf ears.
So you want, expect, and DEMAND, fascism! Who knew?
Don't be an idiot. Demagoguery will get you nowhere, at least not with me. You're the one who keeps harping on the 2nd Amendment as though the Patriot Act repeals it or something. I haven't said word one about it other than to express support for it. You're the one who's siding with Hagel on this while disrespecting the President because you can't separate this issue from the border issue.
I don't need to justify any case against Craig. I disagree with him (and the others), and am suspicious of his motives. Period. Perhaps he is acting on principle, perhaps not. I have no way of knowing. I can be pretty sure Hagel is not. Sununu is a northeast liberal Republican. Murkowski is as much of a surprise on this as is Craig, so I'm equally suspicious of her motives. End of story.
End of story except that Los Angeles has been lucky to escape a major terrorist attack so far even though it has been targeted. With the death of the Patriot Act, Los Angeles becomes that much more vulnerable. None of your hypotheticals and theoretical arguments hold a candle to that reality.
Daniel J. Schultz writes on the origins of the second amendment:
A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army:If these nanny staters knew anything about the Constitution, they'd come out and attack the fathers of our country directly.
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.
As it is, I can't see why they're so desperate to obtain the PA just as it is. It's almost as if President Bush's speech advocating that the PA be reauthorized immediately has them convinced that it simply can't be done properly in the short amount of time left.
What a hoot! In general, they're saying some bad provisions in the Patriot Act are acceptable because we can't do without it. And why can't we just take out the bad provisions and get on with it? Evidently because it would take too much discussion! I don't even think President Bush meant that.