Kill the assault rifle ban? YES

[Bowline]

The 1994 semiautomatic or so-called assault weapons ban expires Sept. 13. The media drumbeat to reauthorize it has begun, and some politicians are dancing to the familiar tune.

Instead of merely reauthorizing the ban, however, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-L.I.) seeks to ban more guns and implement a national registration scheme. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the assault weapons ban sponsor, said on CBS' "60 Minutes," "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in - I would have done it." The gun control agenda has never been stated more honestly.

This new legislation is one step toward that agenda.

The assault weapon debate is ruled by emotion, not fact. That's why in the elections following enactment of the ban, gun owners went to the polls in great numbers and, for the first time in 134 years, unseated the speaker of the House. That's why President Bill Clinton told the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "The fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress." That's why in March 1996, 239 members of the House voted across party lines to repeal the Clinton gun ban.

---

Complete text.

[Paschall]

1. It's nice to know sources and authors

Blind links like the one you provided are kind of annoying.

The New York Daily News? No, thank you. Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, in other words the NRA's chief lobbyist? Double no thank you.

[Bowline]

3. I don't pass judgement on the source.

I prefer to discuss the actual content of the article.

[MrBenchley]

5. The content is a lie

put forth by the chief lobbyist for a bunch of far right wing loonies...

[iverglas]

9. sorry, it isn't an "article"

It's an opinion piece.

To which an appropriate response would be: yawn.

[iverglas]

10. you see ...

... just for clarification ... if the author of an "article" said something like this:

Instead of merely reauthorizing the ban, however, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-L.I.) seeks to ban more guns and implement a national registration scheme. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the assault weapons ban sponsor, said on CBS' "60 Minutes," "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in - I would have done it." The gun control agenda has never been stated more honestly.

... then s/he would expect to be fired, if s/he were working for a reputable newspaper.

We all know (yes we do, sigh) that the "them" in Feinstein's statement referred to assault weapons. And yet anybody less knowledgeable than us, reading that paragraph, would think that she was referring to "guns". After all, the abridged quotation from Feinstein immediately follows the sentence about McCarthy seeking "to ban more guns". What do we clever, informed, honest folks suppose the author was trying to make people think?

Would anyone at all informed, or rational, quote this statement --

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn your assault weapons all in - I would have done it."

-- and then say:

"The gun control agenda has never been stated more honestly"

??

I wouldn't think so. Would you?

So could you explain why your pet author here said exactly that?

[MrBenchley]

2. Sez the NRA...

"Cox is executive director of National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. "

Some more rancid opinion from this dreary fuckwit...

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=142

[iverglas]

8. maybe

the fact that it was published in the New York Daily News was supposed to lend it some credibility.

Snork.

I must admit to not having had the pleasure of reading it, but I've read *about* it.

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/mb3.htm

ANNOUNCING THE P.U.-LITZER PRIZES FOR 1997

TABLOID TYRANT PRIZE -- Publishing magnate Mort Zuckerman

During the height of Dianamania in September, Zuckerman exercised his prerogative as owner of New York's Daily News by firing the top editor, Pete Hamill. The problem? Hamill tried to cut back on celebrity and gossip coverage. His last battle with management was over the use of a crude, revealing photo of Princess Diana exiting a car. Hamill lost the fight and the job.

ULTIMATE HEADLINE -- New York Daily News

"Princess Di Knew O.J. Would Walk"

Well, so did I, of course.


http://www.fair.org/views/2001.html

Boondocks, 10/4/01. This strip was spiked by the New York Daily News for questioning U.S. foreign policy.

But never mind. No need to laugh at the secondary source when the primary sources, the good ol' NRA and its, what, chief lobbyist? are so, um, serious and excellent.

That's sure 'nuff where I plan to be getting my opinions from all right.

[name not needed]

4. Thanks for the right wing bullshit

I really needed that this morning. Thank you :eyes:

[Bowline]

6. You're welcome. Feel free to discuss the actual content any time.

I posted this article because I believe it warrants serious discussion. If you don't then feel free to take your ranting elsewhere.

[markus]

7. The GOP is going to kick out all the stops

and this will be part of it.

We need reasonable, locally controlled gun control legislation.

We don't need one law for DC and LA that is supposed to work in ND and MS.

If we do this, we can effectively "disarm" the gun lobby and try to take this issue off the table.

If you don't want to discuss this reasonably, as Bowline suggested, then you should plan to continue to right off large parts of the South, Midwest and West as potential Democratic territory.

P.S. I don't own a gun, and never have. I don't hunt or fish. But I stand up for those who do, as well.

[MrBenchley]

11. What a pantload

"We don't need one law for DC and LA that is supposed to work in ND and MS."
Are there hordes of attacking Chinese soldiers in ND we haven't heard about? What the fuck do folks in ND need an assault weapon FOR?

[YNGW]

12. Maybe because....

>What the fuck do folks in ND need an assault weapon FOR?

...if the law says they can own one, it's their right to do so without having to answer to others "Why?".

[Bowline]

15. You mean I should be able to exercise my rights...

...WITHOUT government permission? Intriguing concept. Perhaps we shall have to try that.

[YNGW]

16. Let's hope it doesn't get to that point.

nc

[MrBenchley]

20. Too too funny...

In fact the law says they can't...as well it should.

[library_max]

67. Try to follow the logic.

The poster said that a law to protect LA and DC will not work in MS and ND. The question in response was, for what do people in MS and ND need assault weapons when people in LA and DC do not? The old, "screw the need, I have the right" argument is irrelevant and nonresponsive. It's not true anyway - the Second Amendment does not confer an RKBA outside the context of the armed militia, which is dead and gone.

[enfield collector]

14. this is America, they don't have to justify to you why they need anything.

[markus]

22. I'm not debating the merits of specific legislation

but rather the entire Democratic Party approach to gun control. If we want to be a national party, it needs to be taken off the national table, except for the most obvious conditions.

A lot of it is semantics. I don't think we need an "assault weapon" bad. I think we need a ban on large magazines, and weapons easily converted (back) to fully automatic fire.

I don't care if they look like an AK-47 or a Red Ryder BB Gun.

Defining "assault weapons" is a very murky subject...

[enfield collector]

64. uggh!

but rather the entire Democratic Party approach to gun control. If we want to be a national party, it needs to be taken off the national table, except for the most obvious conditions.

A lot of it is semantics. I don't think we need an "assault weapon" bad. I think we need a ban on large magazines, and weapons easily converted (back) to fully automatic fire.

I don't care if they look like an AK-47 or a Red Ryder BB Gun.

Defining "assault weapons" is a very murky subject...

Your message

that's because it's a bullshit term to begin with. those guns can't be easily converted to fire full auto, ATF wouldn't approve them for sale if they could. and what's the size of the magazine got to do with anything? these guns are used in less than 2% of crimes. do something about handguns, they're used in 2/3rds of crime.

[Hef]

71. I'll tell you why

Because in rural America, it's not uncommon for your closest neighbor to be miles away from you. It is perfectly safe to shoot your weapons at 400m, then put it away without incident.

In D.C. or L.A., finding a safe place to shoot at 400m is next to impossible. Your next door neighbor's house could be as close as 10 feet. You might have 200 sq. ft. of back yard (IF THAT!). Let's not forget the greater likelyhood of B&E and theft of weapons in urban America.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Bowline]

13. Hey, how did the rational, logical guy sneak in here?

I agree with you 100%. Ineffective legislation like the AWB plays right into the hands of the Republican party and it's primary backers like the NRA. It divides the left and has been shown to cost us elections...big time! If Gore had been able to carry even ONE of the rural and/or southern states he lost in 2000 we'd be in a whole different world right now.

The perceived anti-gun stance of the Democratic party cost us the house in 1994 and the White House in 2000. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's time to reassess the policy and adjust accordingly.

[iverglas]

18. so very "rational" and "logical"

To quote your new friend:

We need reasonable, locally controlled gun control legislation.

We don't need one law for DC and LA that is supposed to work in ND and MS.

I think this is pretty much a "no comment required" situation. Res ipsa loquitur, and all that.

But well, one shouldn't assume, should one?

Maybe your new friend can do a better job than the rest of you have done to demonstrate how a law for DC and LA that doesn't apply in ND and MS can be expected to have any effect whatsoever in DC and LA when it comes to preventing the people in DC and LA who use firearms to cause harm from having access to them.

Who knows, maybe there's an answer out there somewhere ...

[markus]

23. In DC, gun ownership is virtually impossible

If you want to buy a pump action 20 ga shotgun for trap shooting, you should expect to wait about 3-4 months for your paper work to process.

Meanwhile, when I lived on 4th St SE, I could occasionally hear what sounded like gun battles.

Again, I'm talking about gun control in general and not specifically the assault weapon bad.

So, let's start there.

Define "assault weapon".

The NRA has successfully brainwashed it's membership that, by this code word, you mean just about any automatically repeating firearm. If that *is* what you mean, then Bush will be the next president of the United States if we make this a big issue. And we part ways.

If you don't view this as an attempt to generally reduce gun ownership, but a real attempt to limit dangerous, militarily derived assault rifles and machine pistols, then lets start out trying to figure out how to get past the NRA propoganda.

P.S.--They'll let just about anybody in here, Bowline.

[MrBenchley]

25. In that case....

"lets start out trying to figure out how to get past the NRA propoganda."
Can't think of a better way than pointing out the outright hypocrisy of the NRA supporting this unelected drunk...who paid lip service to renewing the ban and then did nothing.

[iverglas]

32. say what?

"In DC, gun ownership is virtually impossible"

Don't you actually mean it is virtually impossible to purchase a firearm legally in DC?

Do you really not see the very large difference between those two statements?? And that the statement you made is very far from accurate? And that this is kinda the whole point?

[FeebMaster]

42. Huh?

Define "assault weapon".

The NRA has successfully brainwashed it's membership that, by this code word, you mean just about any automatically repeating firearm. If that *is* what you mean, then Bush will be the next president of the United States if we make this a big issue. And we part ways.

If you don't view this as an attempt to generally reduce gun ownership, but a real attempt to limit dangerous, militarily derived assault rifles and machine pistols, then lets start out trying to figure out how to get past the NRA propoganda.

Maybe you could start by defining assault weapon. Now, I'm no fan of the NRA, but I haven't seen much, if any, disinformation coming from the NRA with regard to assault weapons. You do understand that the AWB has nothing to do with assault rifles and machine pistols, right?

[library_max]

68. Or you could buy one in Virginia. What's stopping you?

You can take public transportation to Virginia from DC.

[iverglas]

19. and never forget

If we do this, we can effectively "disarm" the gun lobby and try to take this issue off the table.

If you put it in your platform that you would outlaw abortion, you could effectively "abort" the anti-choice lobby and try to take that issue off the table, too.

[MrBenchley]

21. That RKBA "logic" or whatever the hell it is....

The only way to effectively oppose right wing loonies is to enthusiastically parrot whatever idiotic talking poits they come up with....in a pig's eye.

[markus]

24. I'm not suggesting abandoning reasonable gun control

Where in my post did I suggest that?

I suggested that in some places (Washingon, DC) gun control means effectively banning gun ownership.

In North Dakota, it means hitting the target.

That doesn't mean people in North Dakota would accept reasonable restrictions on what I hope we all mean by "assault weapons", large magazine and a high-rate of fire, possibly coupled with a shorter barrel length.

But they wouldn't accept anything they perceive as an attempt to seriously retrict gun ownership.

These are particularly my *personal* view. My own view is, guns should be like cars. You should have to test for a license, and carry liability insurance. They gun itself should not be a threat to the community if used reasonably and properly. But I'm not about to try to run for state-wide office in North Dakota on that platform.

[goju]

27. What is interesting

is that, the all too often quoted poll that purportedly finds 70+% support for renewing the AWB, doesnt hold much sway with our elected officials. Aside from the usual suspects, everyone else seems to be "hands off" on this one. I wonder why?

If I were a politician, and 70% of my constituency supported something, I think I might pay more lip service to it. Surprisingly, or really not in this case, that is not happening.

[MrBenchley]

28. Hahahahaha....

"If I were a politician, and 70% of my constituency supported something, I think I might pay more lip service to it."
Tell us again...why do the Republicans (who are blocking it) say?

"Here's a brief review of published comments since May. First, on May 12, The Hill newspaper wrote "an aide to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has said privately that if Bush pushes for it, the ban will probably be reauthorized. But if he doesn't, the chances of legislation's passing this year are remote."
Then, on June 24, the Boston Globe reported "Ken Lisaius, a White House spokesman, said Bush still supports the ban, but is waiting for the House to act."
Then, on July 11, the Washington Post reported the House Majority Leader Tom Delay said "we stated our position before the White House had to ask us... (the White House) knew not to (ask,) because the votes are not there."
Now, following a news conference held by Representatives Michael Castle (R-DE) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Delay told the daily newsletter Congressional Quarterly (news - web sites) "there's no reason to use floor time for a vote just to have a vote on this particular subject," he said. "And unless directed otherwise, I see no reason to bring it to the floor.""

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040722/pl_usnw/the_evidence_is_clear__president_bush_is_blocking_assault_weapons_renewal__says_brady_campaign134_xml

That's the lip service you were pretending you didn't see...

[iverglas]

30. "guns should be like cars"

Do feel free to browse around J/PS so you aren't wasting your time saying things that have been said several hundred million times before -- and responded to as often.

"guns should be like cars"

I must agree!

Guns should be IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEAL. We should all be issued x-ray specs so that we can see every gun in our vicinity, regardless of how well hidden it might be under someone's clothing or in the trunk of someone's car.

Conversely, of course, "cars should be like guns". They should come with Klingon technology, so that anyone driving one on the public highways without permission to do so can conceal that fact with the flip of a switch.

They gun itself should not be a threat to the community if used reasonably and properly.

And pigs should fly, if outfitted properly with jet engines.

Doesn't that little tiny word "if" sometimes express such a very big "if"?

But I'm not about to try to run for state-wide office in North Dakota on that platform.

Pragmatism is one thing. Even those who would genuinely prefer that there be no firearms in private hands in the US are highly unlikely to propose that any political party incorporate this policy in its platform.

Pandering is another thing, of course. It isn't that hard to tell the difference.

Here's an easy way.

Take a look at all those people whose votes you might be trying to get by abandoning present firearms control policies in general, or the assault weapons ban in particular. And ask yourself whether they are likely to vote for you if you do that. And answer the question honestly (you can be honest with yourself at no risk). Report back, if you like.


If I read in a word that I think may have been unintentionally omitted:

That doesn't mean people in North Dakota would <not> accept reasonable restrictions on what I hope we all mean by "assault weapons", large magazine and a high-rate of fire, possibly coupled with a shorter barrel length.

then you don't seem to have a problem with current Democratic Party policy positions as I understand them.

So what's this? --

If you don't want to discuss this reasonably, as Bowline suggested, then you should plan to continue to right off large parts of the South, Midwest and West as potential Democratic territory.

All I see is a repetition of the debunked notion that firearms control discourse on the part of the Democratic Party lost significant numbers of votes in the last US federal election.

Here's what Bowline actually said:

The perceived anti-gun stance of the Democratic party cost us the house in 1994 and the White House in 2000. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's time to reassess the policy and adjust accordingly.

and it's as much bullshit as it was the last time it was said here, and the several hundred times it was said before that.

And ... are you really and truly saying that Bowline's reproduction of an intentionally misleading statement about Diane Feinstein and "the gun control agenda" -- in the lead post in this thread -- was "discussing this reasonably"?

Me, I don't regard that sort of thing to be reasonable discussion. Not even close to.

And what it very surely ain't is "civil".

[goju]

52. I guess I missed it

What part of the "perceived anti-gun stance of the Democratic party cost us the house in 1994 and the White House in 2000" statement (Bowline) are you trying to deny?

Are you pretending that it did not cost us seats in the house, or are you denying that Clinton himself acknowledged that fact?

Since we've all read it:
"The fights I fought... cost a lot --the fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress. The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House." WJC
http://www.deepbox.com/authors/C/1906/William-Jefferson-Clinton.html

I know you are from Canada so I wont hold you to "our" respect level of Clinton but, you have to admit he is on OUR side and he is an astute politician, probably the best Ive ever seen.

The question for everyone is, would you rather pretend that voters dont understand gun control hype, or would you rather acknowledge it as Clinton has done, and move on?

Toooo many issues that are waaaay more important than whether someone wants a folding stock on their AR, dont you think?

[iverglas]

53. I'm not pretending a damned thing

What part of the "perceived anti-gun stance of the Democratic party cost us the house in 1994 and the White House in 2000" statement (Bowline) are you trying to deny?

Nor am I "trying to deny" your statement.

I'm saying it's bullshit.

Clearer now?

You can interpret

"The fights I fought... cost a lot --the fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress. The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House."

as

Clinton himself acknowledged that the "perceived anti-gun stance of the Democratic party cost us the house in 1994 and the White House in 2000"

if you like. I don't forget to read that last bit, myself:

The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.

And if you don't know what that means, that's tough. If you want to pretend you don't know what it means, or pretend it means something other than what it means, that's your choice. It doesn't control what I think about it, or about your own misunderstanding or misrepresentation.


The question for everyone is, would you rather pretend that voters dont understand gun control hype, or would you rather acknowledge it as Clinton has done, and move on?

What the fuck was that mess of verbiage?

Gosh, what colour is orange? Have you stopped beating your dog? Which would you rather eat: dirt or dogshit?

Take your nasty incivil rhetoric and play with it someplace else, okay?

(edited to fix typo)

[goju]

54. LOL

No of course not. I forgot I was in the bizarro world of logic. Denying a statement, or calling it bullshit... well, its just not the same I guess.

But, if you want to parse words, go ahead. It wasnt the "constitutional controllers" position on the gun issues that cost us the seats, it was the NRA's position on gun issues that cost us the seats. Oky doky. But I still cant find a logical way around the fact that GUN CONTROL COST US SEATS! Im quite sure you can though :)

Blame the NRA, blame bush, blame the boogey man for all I care. Id still like to know why we dont see more talk about gun control coming from our side. You'd think with the AWB set to expire soon, they'd be all over it.

I guess IM confused huh?

[MrBenchley]

55. Hey, facts are such awkward things...

"It wasnt the "constitutional controllers" position on the gun issues that cost us the seats, it was the NRA's position on gun issues that cost us the seats."
Actually, it was the NRA's dough, funnelled into propaganda about how swell Newt's Contract on America was, that cost us those seats. There were next to no races where guns were an issue at all...

[iverglas]

63. aww

You went and spelled it out. I thought that was my job. ;)

[skippythwndrdog]

17. We're about to take a good step back.

The AWB has been discussed to death in this forum. It still deserves more discussion. It's a bad penny that doesn't want to go away.

With the expiration of the AWB just 34 days away, we can afford to breathe a little easier. What we can't affors to do is accept this small "victory" and become complacent. All the AWB ever amounted to was another tiny crack in the door allowing those who would strip of of our Constitutional rights somewhat easier access into our lives.

For whatever reason, those who would strip us of our 2A rights are using sound tactics to achieve that goal. Chip away at them a bit at a time. Let the masses get used to "just a little" more restrictions on their rights. WHen the appropriate comfort level of the masses is reached, make another chip. Before you know it, those rights are gone forever.

Newsflash! Those of us who cherish our rights granted by the Constitution are not going to become complacent. We are not going to go away. We are going to continue to do everything we can to preserve those rights.

What's next? Speech limits? Censorship of the media? Travel restrictions? Assembly limits? Guess what! Those are some of our other Constitutional rights that have been limited by the Patriot Act. I don't see any of us being very happy about those restrictions and they're vvery mild compared to what has happened to the American shooter since 1934.

edited to repair HTML

[MrBenchley]

29. A step back...and none of it good....

[skippythwndrdog]

36. IS that you one the left?

I agree with letting this nasty little piece of freedom grabbing die.

Just for discussion, doesn't the congress need to send Chimpy a bill to sign? Executive orders only go so far.

[skippythwndrdog]

37. Here it comes

[MrBenchley]

43. Nope, that's a "gun rights" activist....

You know, Larry Pratt's constituency....

"Pratt runs an assortment of far-right outfits out of an office in the D.C. area, including Gun Owners of America and English First, and has ties to anti-abortion groups as well. Pratt led an anti-abortion walkout from a Presidential conference on the family. His Gun Owners of America, which provided key funding to elect pro-militia Congress-members in the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress, was an early endorser of Buchanan's 1996 campaign. Pratt is himself a former elected official. He served as a right wing Virginia state legislator. Far from simply having made an error in judgment in attending one meeting with Klansmen and racists, he has been a key figure straddling the line and providing links between the "mainstream" right, Christian Reconstructionism, and the openly neo-nazi forces of Christian Identity and the Aryan Nations. He has spoken, for example, at the Jubilee "Jubilation," a California gathering sponsored by the leading Christian Identity newspaper, along with Aryan Nations "ambassador" and former Texas Klan leader Louis Beam.
Pratt exposed the racist character of his leanings by participating in the Estes Park, CO gathering called by Christian Identity "Reverend" Pete Peters to organize support for white supremacist Randy Weaver, who was arrested after a shoot-out with federal marshals in Idaho. Pratt, who is a Christian Reconstructionist, brought to the meeting his proposal, based on his book Armed People Victorious, for starting armed Christian militias in the U.S. "

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/085.html

Such nice little playmates our pro gun democrats have....

[skippythwndrdog]

45. Bingo!

Told ya it was coming!

[MrBenchley]

46. And now that it's here....

[iverglas]

48. amazing, isn't it??

YOU reply to a post on an internet discussion board ... and then SOMEONE REPLIES TO YOU!!!

Who'd 'a thunk it, eh?

[MrBenchley]

49. Skippy seems to be baffled by fact

[skippythwndrdog]

57. Not baffled. You're just so-o-o-o-o predictable.

[MrBenchley]

61. And the RKBA crowd is so-o-o-o-o-o lame....

When they're not outright dishonest, they're pathetically pissy....

[iverglas]

33. and as usual

What's next? Speech limits? Censorship of the media? Travel restrictions? Assembly limits? Guess what! Those are some of our other Constitutional rights that have been limited by the Patriot Act. I don't see any of us being very happy about those restrictions and they're vvery mild compared to what has happened to the American shooter since 1934.

(and disregarding that ridiculous last bit) -- what we aren't seeing is many of our "pro-rkba" colleagues having much to say about any of those things anywhere.

Nah, they're just all "very mild", and they're certainly not worth making issues of in order to persuade those poor long-suffering USAmerican shooters that voting for the Democratic Party might be the right thing to do.

[skippythwndrdog]

34. DOGPILE! I love it.

Well, at least a pile of two. The usual suspects.

Care to tell me which part you think is ridiculous? I take my freedoms cery seriously. All are equally important IMO.

[MrBenchley]

35. I think the most ridiculous part

is trying to pretend keeping these public menaces out of the hands of fuckwits is JUST LIKE the Justice Department's surveillance of libraries....

[skippythwndrdog]

38. But it is.

Words are dangerous tools in the eyes of some. Firearms are danderous tools in the eyes of some. (I'd hate to have a BMG in my eye.)

Freedoms are freedoms. We have them and we want to keep them.

[TX-RAT]

39. We have them and we want to keep them

Have you lost a freedom?

[MrBenchley]

41. Next time you shout "Bang!" and someone drops dead

let us all know....

"Freedoms are freedoms."
Yeah, and RKBA horseshit is horseshit...

[library_max]

69. "Freedoms are freedoms."

But you can't just make up any freedom your little ol' heart desires. When you live among other people, you have to accept restriction by law. That means that there will be some things you won't be able - allowed - to do. And it will be the polity at large, and not just you personally, which will decide which things those will be.

[iverglas]

40. "I take my freedoms cery seriously"

"All are equally important IMO."

Well then I'll bet you take your freedom to poop as seriously as I do.

Dog knows where we'd be without that one, for sure.

I'm sure you're with me, then, when I say Give me my pooping liberty or give me death! And you can have my poop when you pry it from my cold dead bum ... no, wait, that's a different verse of the catechism, isn't it? Oh well, freedom to poop implies freedom not to poop, after all, right?


Care to tell me which part you think is ridiculous?

Gosh, I thought I did. You said:

What's next? Speech limits? Censorship of the media? Travel restrictions? Assembly limits? Guess what! Those are some of our other Constitutional rights that have been limited by the Patriot Act. I don't see any of us being very happy about those restrictions and they're vvery mild compared to what has happened to the American shooter since 1934.

and I referred to "that ridiculous last bit". Are you having difficulty determining which bit of what you wrote that I quoted was "last"?

I kinda thought it would be obvious that the assertion that all of the things that have happened under your Patriot Act paled in comparison to "what has happened to the American shooter since 1934" was not only "the last bit", but also patently ridiculous.

[skippythwndrdog]

44. Your trash - my treasure

But then, since neither our firearms laws nor the Patriot act pertain to you directly, it's understandable that you would have difficulty with the concept of freedoms being equal.

[iverglas]

47. such understandable things

But then, since neither our firearms laws nor the Patriot act pertain to you directly, it's understandable that you would have difficulty with the concept of freedoms being equal.

Of course, that's just a bunch of words strung together to produce a package of drivel that makes no sense whatsoever.

(Since your laws don't apply to me it's understandable that I have difficulty with this bogus concept of yours? O-kaaay. The causal relationship here eludes me, but I'll bet that's understandable, to someone.)

Now, if I were to say:

But then, since what you appear to have been attempting to say would, if you had managed to say it, have demonstrated that you knew pretty much fuck all about the world outside your borders, it's understandable that I would point and laugh.

... well now, that one would make sense. If I said it.

"The concept of freedoms being equal" is about as meaningful as "the concept of colours being equal".

Are they "equal" as in they must not be discriminated against? Now that would make no sense, would it? Who ever heard of freedoms, or colours, being discriminated against? No orange allowed here!!

Are they "equal" as in "I like them all equally" or "I think they're all equally important"? Well, you may indeed. You may like orange as much as you like blue, too, and think that orange is as important as blue. Who cares? I detest orange and think the world could get along very well without it. And I'm perfectly free (heh heh) to think that so, and to think that some freedoms are just a little more important than others, if I happen to think that.

Of course, and not being wont to misquote or misconstrue Benjamin Franklin even if I cared what he'd said, I also recognize that security ("freedom from want, freedom from fear") is every single bit as important to human beings as any of your love-'em-all-equally freedoms might be.

You're entirely free to not give a shit about your own or anyone else's security, but since you don't actually rule the world, your opinion isn't all that important.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goju]

26. Isnt this a non issue at this point?

There is no way they will extend the ban with only a few days left. The "constitutional controllers" have to find a new way to disarm citizens. Any thoughts on their next tactic?

My guess is that they will try to go after the 2nd directly. And what's at risk is more than just gun ownership, its every other right the "people" have under our constitution. Ashcroft is waiting with baited breath and grinning like a puppy with two peckers!

We need to be vigilante against the puppets and keep our eye on anyone who tells us what rights we "should" have, or "need" to have. Im confident the AWB will takes its proper place in history but, dont let your guard down.

[MrBenchley]

31. Course not....

The fear by the NRA is that GOP lawmakers are going to come back to the hill terrified of Democratic momentum and scrambling to reach out to the middle....where an overwhelming majority wants these weapons banned...

"My guess is that they will try to go after the 2nd directly."
Why...it's not like it confers anything but a collective right to own guns, as the courts have ruled again and again and again....

"We need to be vigilante against the puppets"
Yeah, it's disgraceful to see "pro gun democrats" spouting far right wing talking points and attacking Democrats...

[MrSandman]

65. Through tort law...n/t

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OpSomBlood]

56. Since Australians are so uncontrollably violent as you suggest...

...I'm particularly glad that I live in a country that supports my right to defend myself with force from such lunatics. I guess it's okay to advocate violence against someone who calls those who refuse to fight for their rights "sheep."

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thomas82]

60. delete

Starting to sound like a dic* so i'll stop

[skippythwndrdog]

62. Are they going to get married or just shack up?

Inquiring/enquiring minds want to know.

edited to add: You know who I mean.

[MrSandman]

66. Just let it stand as is...n/t

[slackmaster]

70. Amen to that!

:toast:

[thomas82]

72. Sorry the AW ban's time has come

BUY BYE!!!!!
Tom

[derby378]

73. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

74. And the price of RKBA stupidity and dishonesty

is between 90,000-115,000 Americans shot every year....