29 replies [Last post]
Offline
Joined: 02/25/2007
Posts: 53
Another run at the AWB

Ghillieman,

You are reading things into my response that are simply not there. I never said some guns were designed to kill while others weren't. It is simply a matter of WHAT they are designed to kill. You point about knives largely supports what I've said all along, which is that someone that wants to commit a violent crime will find a way.

As for my foolish quote, perhaps you should re-read my post. I talked about my preference or lack thereof for assault rifles. I never said I could care less about your right to own an assault rifle. In fact, I even say outright in that same post that I support your individual choice to own whatever sort of firearms you choose to own. And in my post prior to that one, I again talk about the right to own whatever firearms one chooses. That's what freedom is all about, individual liberty. Of course I recognize our common interests in freedom to own all types of firearms. I also agree that there are those that would use banning assault rifles as a first step to completely eradicate firearms and hunting from our society altogether. So please do not confuse my preferences for lack of concern.

The original intent when posting my comments was to challenge the idea that assault rifles were no different than other types of rifles. I don't want to go through it again, but if you want to challenge my argument please feel free. I would just ask that you read my post about the matter more carefully and do not misquote me.

Finally, my other point was that from my understanding of the Democratic party and the American political machine, the AWB simply doesn't stand a chance. There will always be radicals on the left and right that introduce outlandish bills. That doesn't mean it will see a vote on the floor of our congress. I think it is self evident that the AWB was a spectacular failure. I think most, not all but most, politicians acknowledge this. Combine this with the fact that conservative Republicans were replaced by conservative Democrats this past election cycle and it makes absolutely no sense that a bill like an new AWB would even make it past commitee. So it's my position that the AWB will never be law again. That's just my opinion.

Offline
Location: MN
Joined: 03/01/2007
Posts: 30
Another run at the AWB

I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions about your stance, which I've did before here, its just a new site to me & I'm trying to cram all the posts in to get up to speed, which makes me missing somethings sometimes.
as for the HR 1022 never being law again, thats a very very bad stance you got there, the same stance others took years ago for the 1st ban & guess what ? it happened.

& I've got a reply back from my worthless house rep . he didnt say it but what he said was clear as day about this bill & the 2nd amendment.
in short the bill would be ineffect for 10 years & the DEBATE about the 2nd amendment is on going. WHAT F'ing DEBATE ? theres is no debate its OUR right its OUR law its 2nd inline. what dont they understand ?

Offline
Joined: 02/25/2007
Posts: 53
Another run at the AWB

It sounds like a bunch of politician BS. The debate is probably about whether or not to debate the idea off debating the bill. lol Joking aside the debate may be over whether the bill would even be constitutional and if not whether it would be struck down by the courts. From the sounds of the extent of the bill, it seems to overstep the boundaries that the US SUpreme Court has placed on restricting gun ownership. The courts have been pretty clear about an individual's right to own firearms and right to own firearms for self defense. What isn't so clear is what kinds and types of firearms can be owned. When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment they were all using smokepoles.

Also there is debate as to where the rights of the individual or the people stand as opposed to the right of the states. The second amendment is peculiar in the it not only refers to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but also a right of the state , a well regualted militia. Some very narrow and oversimplified reading of court decisions, would suggest that the court does not recognize the individual's right to own a gun but rather a state's right to a national guard.

I understand what you are saying about where is the debate. Most of the debate takes place among lawyers. If you're really interested I could go more in depth, but here goes the short of it. When court justices make decisions, they do so in a big legal write up. Apart from giving the decision, they give their reasons and pertinent case law regarding the decisions. A lawyer would read those decisions and look for language in the decision that supports or opposses his position be it pro gun or anti gun and then make a legal argument based on that reasoning in the decision. So the debate currently probably revolves around where the line is drawn in reagrds to how much the state can regulate the ownership of guns before it becomes a violation of the constitution.

From a legal aspect, the current bill that is proposed is nowhere near passing constitutional muster. It is radically restricitive. It is highly unlikely that such a far reaching bill could become law overnight. If gun ownership is restricted in such a way that the new AWB envisions, it would not be overnight. Instead it would happen over a long period of time. One would have to gradually chip away at gun rights in order to achieve that sort of change. It would be a matter of setting new legal precedents and establishing new case law, that could take decades. By design, the American legal system is conservative that way. That's my best explantion of the debate. I hope it is useful to you.

cowgal's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 03/10/2002
Posts: 1787
Another run at the AWB
SoloHunter wrote:
So it's my position that the AWB will never be law again.

I hope you're right! Yes I still believe we need to keep a close eye on the committee debates and see how far this goes. If it makes it past the first round of debates and progresses on to a general debate on the congressional floor, there could be trouble brewing.

We also need to keep a close eye on any revisions, additions, etc., to try and make this bill more palatable and more likely to get voted in.

Offline
Location: Lexington Mi.
Joined: 01/03/2007
Posts: 7
Another run at the AWB

Solo, First off it's the Democrat Party not the Democratic Party, Secondly all of these so called conservative democrats that campaigned and won, do you really think that they are now going to vote across party lines? Nancy will chew them up, and you will never hear from them again. And thats only in the house.
I just don't think we can give these guys an inch. I hope your right when you say "we have nothing to fear about the AWB" but I really don't think so. Don't take these guys for granted we'll be hunting with sling shots if we are not careful.

Offline
Location: Misouri
Joined: 11/30/2005
Posts: 365
Another run at the AWB

How about enforcing the over 2000 gun laws that are in effect currently rather than dumping a few hundred more on us. The AWB is BS as the previous ban showed.

Offline
Location: MN
Joined: 03/01/2007
Posts: 30
Another run at the AWB

solo - we already have laws that are slowly chipping away our rights to own guns, this HR 1022 bill is just another bill to limit some more.
the public is slowly accepting these small little laws/makes of guns that limit guns in certain states, & by the time the public wakes up to realize whats going on it'll be to late to do anything.
1 day you say its ok these people shouldnt own guns or people shouldnt own this style of weapons, well the anti wont stop cuz one day someone with the most trival misdamenor cant own a gun or no one can own any gun except single shot or pre 1930's weapons ?

did you send out a email/letter to your rep ? sign the petition ?

Offline
Joined: 02/25/2007
Posts: 53
Another run at the AWB

ajndad,

You'll have to excuse my spelling errors, as I am not a very proficient typist. You and I simply agree to disagree. In the Senate the Democratic caucus is very fragile. If I am not mistaken, with that one Senator, whose name I cannot recall, that is out due to a medical condition, the Democractic Senate only holds a one vote majority with Joe Lieberman who got elected as an independent.

As for the house, Nancy doesn't determine whether or not the blue dogs aka conservative Democrats get re-elected, their constitutents do. Politicians have one goal in life once elected, that is to get re-elected. So I would argue that a representative would much sooner cross party lines and shore up support at home, rather than shore up support from the party and risk alienating the people that put him or her in power. If the party had such strong control of its members as you suggest, a litany of "liberal" ideas would have been passed such as gay marriage, funding cut off for Iraq, national health care etc. That's just my opinion based on my understanding of American politics and my experience.

ghillieman,

Which laws are worrisome to you exactly? I am not familiar with a lot of these laws, but I would guess that there are legitimate reasons for restriciting carrying or possessing guns in certain settings. For instance, here in OR you cannot carry a gun in the court house and such.

All I can say is that you seem to be doing a lot by contacting your elected representatives. However the real power of the people lies in organization and solidarity. This is why I would also urge you to join, if you haven't already, organizations that hire lawyers that see things our way. Personally, I am a member of the RMEF, SCI and my state's Hunting Association.

Finally, I have not signed the petition or contacted my representative. However, this discusion we have been having has motivated me and I will do so ASAP. Keep fighting the good fight.

Offline
Location: MN
Joined: 03/01/2007
Posts: 30
Another run at the AWB

solo - theres alot of laws that restrict gun ownership & where or who, some legitimate some are not. like I said before one day it'll be you that cant own a gun
they try to pass laws againt reloading equpiment,# of rounds people can have then needing a special license, making certain misdemeanors illegal for gun ownership, types of weapons or certain ammo illegal to own,etc..............
this is a nonstop ordeal.from the USA & UN
& I'm a NRA LM & was a GOA member but when I get the money I'll be a GOA LM (soon)& NAHC LM

unless the 2nd isnt a big deal ? I suppose it could be better like other countries that its illegal to own mace,cant carry a small knife, cant own pump shotguns,cant own pistols, cant own semi auto guns of any sort, & with that single shot gun must be locked up in a govt approved safe & they can check at anytime & say its not up to par & take it away, & its against the law to shoot someone breaking into your house & threating you because your gun was out of the safe & its against the law because they'll say to were waiting in ambush,& some guns need to be pre a certain year to own them, etc........................

check out some laws that they try to pass & you dont need to be a NRA member to look through their site

http://www.nraila.org/

oh yea forgot about our military & new olreans police taking guns away from citizens that were legal to own & could own, but now they had to fight to get them back & some still havent got them back., yea thats fair for ya eye roll

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Another run at the AWB

I don't know how "conservative" the newly elected democrats are. One of them, Jim Webb, recently introduced legislation that would cut off funding for any military action against Iran without prior congressional approval. Say what you want about Iraq, but those "conservative" democrats are sending a loud and clear signal to Iran that the US isn't going to do anything to stop them. This is the same type of logic that emboldened Hitler in 1938.

And yet when Israel strikes Iran in the future because no one else will do anything, you can bet those "conservative" democrats will blame Bush for it.

Back on topic, power in Washington lies in key congressional positions. Those freshman legislators who don't go along will see their bills pigeonholed and they won't get anyting done for their constituencies. Make no mistake about it -- leadership is perfectly able to strong arm. They'll do it, too. It'll take time, but they'll slowly push things their way.