Bush Administration Affirms Stance on "Assault Weapon" Ban Extension

[The patriot]

http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00159.html

 

[Rman]

"Don't worry it'll be alright, surely they won't hurt us."

HAHAHAHA thats the ***** footed yellow bellied democrat in every situation.

 

[Shovelhead]

The Washington DC Metro area is NOT what you would call "Gun-Friendly".



However the owner of the local shooting range that I belong to, informed me that following the 9-11 incident, EVERYTHING that he had in inventory that would fire a round went out the door in 3 days.

He replaced his inventory ($2 million) and it was ALL gone 5 days later.

A similar thing happened with the "Beltway Shooter" incident.



It seems that people who are anti-gun can change their minds pretty quickly when it's THEIR butt on the line.

 

[Morphious]

Rusty, from what I've seen of most people in this country, they can't find thier head because it's shoved so far up thier own arses. I won't compromise my beliefs to vote for the lesser of evils. If more people voted this way, we wouldn't have either democrats or republicans in office. Too many people are toting the party line.



Morph.

 

[RustyJC]

We had the "pragmatic" versus "idealistic" vote discussion last week. My point is that the NRA position isn't going to prevail on this assault weapon issue until they do enough voter education to change the political landscape.



Rusty

 

[Mtngoat]

I think it boils down to the Justice System, we don't punish criminals in America, we "reform" them. That just gives them more time to figure out they need more firepower to do the next cime, and whats better?? An assault rifle. If you saw the video of the bank robbers in California a couple years ago holding off an entire police force, you would understand where some folks are coming from. Don't look at the poor disadvantaged "person" (can't say man or woman anymore, not PC) , look at what they were shooting and put the blame there. Its easy that way to blame the weapons, not the system that allows them to used illegally. The basic COMMON SENSE rules applies. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.



Robin

 

[sdalton]

How about if we just take the weapons away from those who dont think we need them?? Wouldnt that make them happy?

 

[John]

Rusty, for one thing it has been proven and subsequently documented that "assault rifles" have been used in less than 1/10th of 1% in the commision of armed crimes. And that is using the broad definition of what constitutes an "assault rifle. " Of that number (if memory serves) not one case was tied to a ligitimate (registered) "assault rifle" owner. That means all weapons seized were not procured through legal channels (i. e. , stolen).



I don't currently own an "assault rifle" however, I have shot many! Many of my friends have rather well rounded collections of "assault" type sporting arms and they are all law abiding citizens. I have lost count how many times a group of us from work used to go out and shoot (at a local gun club) after work... just hang out, share each others treasures, shoot some targets, some bull... just havin' fun.



I personally consider the Second Amendment to be the most important! Without the right to self protection and the protection from government the First Amendment will be surely the next to fall!



It was wrong for George Bush Sr. to go along with the "assault rifle" gun ban crowd and subsequently ban said weapons in the early '90s, it is just as wrong for George W. Bush to go along with it now.



I would also like to point out that I proudly voted for both George Bush Sr. as well as George W.

 

[gonehuntingagain]

Originally posted by RustyJC

Do you really need an AK-47...

It has never been about what we "need". If we start valuing things according to "need" then we should go back to being hunter-gatherers. We don't need 180mph corvettes, 700 hp 1200 ft lbs of torque trucks... those are just "cool" to have, like a semi-automatic rifle (which I do hunt with. )



I would have expected something like this from Gore, but now I have to pull the knife out of my back. .



Bush may win, even with this issue only because he may pull some liberals to his side, while the gun owners are so divided on this issue he will lose a few votes, but not enough.



For the first time in my life, I may vote democrat in 2004, and I'm not happy about it.



By the way, you still can buy a real "assault rifle" if you do the class III paperwork and pay the $200 tax... . at least if you are in a state that allows it.

 

[daveshoe]

I had some business going on in west virginia and had an occasion to ask those I was dealing with how/why they intended to vote for president. In my informal poll they ALL said they were going for Bush and it was the fear they had that Gore would harm firearms rights further. They also said [ALL of them] that they had always voted Democrat for president.

Bush needed W. virginia every bit as much as Florida.

Is he really so foolish to assume that a state like this is a part of his base and will just reach down and grab their ankles?

Food for thought.

 

[Speedo]

Because hunting is not the issue in the 2nd Amendment - it is our right to keep and bear arms for self-protection, and if necessary, to effect change in our governmental system or overthrow tyrants - both hard to do when unarmed.



This is the crux of the 2nd Amendment, to allow ourselves the

ability to ensure our liberty. This could be against an individual

who might try to deprive us of our liberty or against a tyranical

government. It is not a protection of our right to hunt or sport

shoot.



Gus

 

[The patriot]

74% said it voilates the second amendment.

There's still hope.....

http://www.vote.com/

Eric

 

[Champane Flight]

70%

According to the polls 70% of the nation wants an assault weapons ban. Some say Bush doesen't play the polls. Latest votes count 64 Democrats voting against assault weapons ban. BOTH partys have some real doozers in their past on gun control, how anyone can blame one party or one person for the gun control laws in place is, shall we say "not quite right". The Brady bill, Colorados gun show laws, and even Californias assault weapon ban all had major Republican backing.



Like the majority of people on this site I feel any weapons ban laws are not rational. Whether someone shoots a person in the head with a AK or a . 22 LR, they are just as dead. A gun is not the problem and as my old Daddy said "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".



I don't think an assault weapons ban is going to lose the election for Bush, his foreign policy, or lack of will lose it though.

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by RustyJC

Do you really need an AK-47 to go hunt Bambi?



Rusty

Actually, I used to turkey hunt with one of those evil AR15's. And it was a pre-ban model.

 

[merryman]

Devide and conquer

NY Times(and many other media types) hates guns and gun owners

NY Times hates George Bush

NY times hates NRA-and all other gun organizations



The new strategy of the gun banners;

If you can't beat them as a group, devide them and GET THEM FIGHTING EACH OTHER. Individually they (Gun owners and groups) will help NY Times (and gun baners generally) defeat each other. When WE defeat each other, one at a time, eventually we may all fall.



Its an age old tactic that has worked many times. Will they devide us and conquer us one at a time??



Unless we can figure out how we can pool our power and effectiveness, we may go like the dodo.

Vaughn

 

[illflem]

and you all thought Monica was the only one

#ad

 

[Steve G]

illflem,

ROFLMAO. You can take the boy out of Texas but you can't take the Texas out of the boy.



Steve

 

[Champane Flight]

He was

That was the Thanksgiving turkey, just trying to get a pardon!

 

[FATCAT]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by The patriot

OK. Because it's my God given right?

Eric

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Do you really think the majority of the American populace believes that? The cold, hard facts are that a ban is in place today, and until public opinion (and, therefore, Congress) swings to your position, nothing's going to change. My point is that the NRA has a selling job to do, and it hasn't done it.



Rusty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently the majority of the American populace have no clue about the Bill of Rights.



I would have to say that the majority of American people are idiots ... easily lead in one direction or another. Promises of good intentions always win out over factual reality.



Assault weapons are now defined as firearms with three of the following characteristics:

- Bayonet lug

- Flash suppressor

- folding stock

- > 10 magazine capacity

- pistol grip



Who is to say congress won't alter these definitions to include any of these items will disqualify the firearm. And how did they come up with these definitions anyway? Aren't these definitions of a "Assault weapon" arbitrary.



How about a scoped rifle being defined as a sniper weapon - ban them also.



The NRA could do the best selling job possible, but the established media will never give them a minute on the air waves to make their case.



We now have hate speech laws, hate crime laws, and now incorrect or non-PC political speech laws. The 1st Amendment is now being marginalized as has been the 4th Amendment with the RICO statutes (seizure of property without any due process and the onus is on you to prove you are innocent).



Americans are easily duped into relinquishing their God given rights so long as dad can get his six-pack on Sunday to watch the game and mom can drive her SUV to cart the kids around without any hassles. It appears that many Americans only care about themselves and their own little world and will never consider the larger picture of our liberties and what we are morally obligated to protect for the future generations.



In short ... I believe the majority of Americans are too stupid to understand that their rights are being evaporated by gov't and will always believe the promises of safety and ignore the reality of what has happened to unarmed citizens at the hands of their gov't.



But, the most important thing is not to convince the populace that the law should/shouldn't be continued ... the most important thing is that judges apply the rule of the Constitution to these idiotic "bans".

 

[Sled Puller]

As much as I want to back Morphs attitude, what we need to do, is make sure Bush gets relected, and some more Pro Gun congressmen.



Then we need to pressure them to get some of our rights back, that the Democrats stole.





I remember one Brit, "Once they are gone, you are bloody well not getting them back. "





The "assault ban" was just a lable, Rusty, that the antis could push through, with idiotic soccer mom support because they didn't know better.

It is only a small step towards overall confiscation. Nobody will believe it until its too late.



It is hard for the NRA to get air time, as the major networks will not sell them any time, not even to preach about gun safety.