Should the Assault Weapons Ban be renewed?

[SyracuseDemocrat]

Poll question: Should the Assault Weapons Ban be renewed?

Should the Assault Weapons Ban be renewed? Reply below if you want.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

1. I personally

do not believe it should be renewed. I think that it is wrong to ban some guns but leave look alike guns legal, and I think that if criminals have ak-47's then other people should be able to also.

[moondust]

2. An Uzi in every pot?

I don't think so.

[Aaron]

9. Aren't Uzi's full auto and thus not covered by the AWB?

I thought the AWB applied only to semi-auto arms. Maybe I'm wrong?

[laconicsax]

3. The name of the ban is misleading

The ban, I assume we're talking the 1994 one, defines an assault weapon as a gun that has more than 2 features or looks like a military weapon.

It's really the dumbest weapons ban I can imagine. It basically says that you can go out and buy a semi-auto rifle--like a Ruger mini-14. It fires a .223 round at about 3000 fps. It's illegal however to go out and buy a semi-auto AR-15 with a bayonet lug. Both fire the same round at about the same muzzle velocity. The AR-15 is only illegal because it has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug--basically because it looks like a military weapon rather than a hunting rifle.

And yes, an AR-15 can be converted to fire full-auto if you buy the right parts, but so can the mini-14. The mini-14 is just a small caliber M-14, which was a full auto rife. Ruger used to make full auto version of the mini-14--the AC-556. It's the gun that the A-team used.

If I remember correctly, the ban also makes it illegal to have a magazine of over 10 rounds, a shotgun with a short barrel, or a .50 caliber handgun, unless they were made pre-ban. Also, I recall that the guns themseves are legal if they're pre-ban.

So basically, it's a useless piece of legislation. It doesn't regulate guns that were made before it was enacted, and it provides no protection from someone going on a shooting spree. It's a law that has no practical purpose.

[ma4t]

57. I beg to differ on one small point

"So basically, it's a useless piece of legislation. "

To the contrary I think the AWB bill was very useful as it served to perfectly illustrate the point that most of the opposition to gun ownership is unthinking, emotional reaction devoid of any rational basis.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

4. Of course it should be renewed.

There is no good argument for not renewing the ban.

[workersunite]

5. Here's one

It's none of your business what kinf of gun I have in the privacy of my own home.

[tkmorris]

13. Dumb argument

It's none of your business what kind of virus I grow in my petri dishes.

It's none of your business what I grow in my closet.

It's none of your business how old that girl is.

It's none of your business what the kilotonage of that nuke in my basement is.

[Aaron]

15. What could you grow in your closet that would be of concern to others? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. anthrax,botulin,vx

[Aaron]

22. Those seemed more like petri dish kind of things to me, maybe I'm wrong nt

[-..__...]

32. And Jesus wept...

<sarcasm>
You should see my closet collection of Kryton switches and retro virus'
</sarcasm>

:eyes:

[stoner_guy]

53. Bad Examples

It is none of my business that you have petri dishes. But if you use them in an irresponsible manner to cause or threaten harm to me or mine it becomes my business.

It is none of my business what you grow in your closet, as long as it stays off my property.

If it is my daughter, it my damn business. If it isn't it depends on my perception of the situation. The older she is, the less of my business it becomes until she is an adult, in which case it is none of my business.

If you live next door to me, then the nuke in your basement is my business. You can't possible use it without anhilating me, therefore I have a vested interest in it. This is exactly analogous to my interest in you guns. If it is in your closet I have no interest whatsoever. If it is in your holster, I have mild interest. If it is your hand I have strong interest because you use of it could injure me. If you point it at me or my family, I will kill you if I can, because your use of it (even accidental) will cause me grevious harm.

My interest is entirely dependent on how large is the risk to me. I'm a peaceful law abiding citizen. Other peaceful law abiding citizens' personal arms are no threat to me. The only exception is my moral obligation to protect the truly helpless (children and imbeciles, as opposed to stupid adults) from harm.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. If You Believe The Rights To Bear Arms Is Absolute

as I infer from your post can I keep nuclear arms in my home.

I'll bet I could fit some tactical level nukes in my garage.

[Aaron]

7. It's bad legislation - banning *cosmetic* features

on firearms and banning production and import instead of an outright ban. It's a silly law.

Edited to add: See post #3 for a fuller explanation.

[slackmaster]

17. Here are a few

- The ban hasn't had any measurable effect on violent crime.

- Gun manufacturers all got around it be removing "evil" features and went about their business.

- The only quantifiable impact it's had is on the price of "pre-ban" firearms.

[Fixated]

34. .....

Fuck violent crime, crime rates are misleading in that they don't exactly show death tallies. Obviously, the line for how powerful of a weapon a civilian can own must be drawn somewhere. I draw it at around the fully automatic assault rifle area.

[Cthulu_2004]

36. You DO realize...

that "the fully automatic assault rifle area" is TOTALLY unaffected by the '94 AW ban, don't you? Just checking...

[jody]

37. But AWB is not about a "fully automatic assault rifle". Those are covered

by the 1934 "National Firearms Act)". See FIREARMS - NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (NFA)

[Cthulu_2004]

35. Unless of course...

you count all the votes and seats in Congress it cost us the first time around.

"Falling on our swords" to pass a renewal seems to be a very stupid thing to do, considering where we are right now.

Thanks, but I'd rather not give the Republicans a big fat bludgeon to use on us.

[ParanoidPat]

6. Unless someone can justify the need for them to those of us who have....

....had to perform first aid on the victims of those weapons that all too often land in the wrong hands, HELL YES!
How can anyone justify the need for them in light of the fact that we're already taxed by the government so they can provide for our protection? :(

Just eliminate the police and the military and I'll back EVERYONE owning one! However with the amount of our taxes spent to maintain the peace, there should be no reason for anyone but legitimate, known (CONTROLLED) collectors to own them! As long as people are allowed to own such weapons, those who choose to use their time and talent to help the victims will unfortunately continue to be placed in the position of not only losing patients but having to explain to their loved ones that the person they loved is gone forever, despite how hard we tried to save them. That's one thing I'll never be able to handle again nor would I wish it on anyone else! :(

I guess some people are cut out to handle that kind of carnage....
I found out the hard way that I'm not one of them! :(

[Aaron]

8. There's a USSC decision that says police aren't required to protect you

I don't recall the citation but I'd bet Jody does.

[ParanoidPat]

11. I don't know who 'jody' is....

....and if you're going to respond at least take the time to do your own research! :) :wtf: are you talking about? "There's a USSC decision that says police aren't required to protect you"???
I can't wait to hear how you or 'Jody' spin this!

[Aaron]

12. Sorry for the confusion - I've found the citation

Jody is a poster who frequently has the case citation for that case in the gun dungeon. Jody is one of the DUers that frequents that forum. Generally whenever I see a post made suggesting that police are responsible for protecting you, it is shortly followed by an explanation that they're not - and that was held in the case of Warren vs. DC.

Here's the case: Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981)

Here's the part of the ruling I was talking about:
"...when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."

From: http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

You can probably find another source for the court's ruling. That was the first one I found using Google.

[ParanoidPat]

16. And your point is?

:shrug: I hear there is a great forum for gun nuts over at a place called appropriately enough ar15.com. Perhaps if you or jody are that into the need to defend yourselves with assault weapons you might like it there.:)
Better yet, grab your guns and head over to Iraq, I'm sure some of the guys who are tired of the fighting could use a rest! :evilgrin:

[Aaron]

23. Thanks for the suggestion but I'm pretty comfortable here

There's a decent number of Dem' gun-owners around this board, certainly enough to satisfy my desire for firearms/RKBA oriented discussion.

In your original post you said "How can anyone justify the need for them in light of the fact that we're already taxed by the government so they can provide for our protection?" My provision of the case info was in reply to that. I wanted to clarify that the police have no duty to protect individuals.

I don't think any of my guns would be much good in Iraq. The hardware the troops use is much better than anything I've got. My stuff is all old and rusty with the exception of one "Saturday Night Special" and I'm just a poor college student right now so I couldn't afford the proper upgrades to my collection. My hunch is that the UN or NATO peacekeepers would be more appropriate replacements for our troops anyway. And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a bit of a sticky wicket for me.

[jody]

27. ParanoidPat, why are you so eager to take away an inalienable right?

SCOTUS has consistently held that government is not obligated to defend any individual against criminals. Self defense is an inalienable right and as such, it cannot be given away.

Starting before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Today 28 states recognize an individual's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed": AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, NC, RI, SC, VA.

Six states have no RKBA provision: CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ, NY.

NINTH AMENDMENT: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"


The says:

QUOTE
Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.
UNQUOTE

As a Yellow Dog Democrat, I have no intention of running from those who would destroy our party. If you feel uncomfortable with the Democrat position on guns and my arguments and those of my colleagues in support of an inalienable right, you might wish to take your arguments elsewhere.

[ParanoidPat]

49. I love your 'black & white' view of the gun ownership issue....

.....all or nothing, no such thing as middle ground. :evilgrin:

Can you please provide a link to any post where I ever advocated removing anyone's right to responsibly possess and use firearms? I don't remember ever having posted such a position.

Rather than waste my time posting numerous links to bolster my position regarding the limits on the type and quantity of weapons that I would consider reasonable, I'll just give you a platform to expound on your views since you have already made up your mind about what I think! :crazy:

Do you believe every American has "certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights" to keep and bear arms regardless of their mental state or previous criminal history? After all, to disallow the mentally deranged and criminal elements to own guns would be denying Americans who were "born equally free and independent" a "natural, inherent and inalienable right"! I can't honestly say that you would back gun ownership for those individuals because I don't know how you really feel about these people and how far you would back their rights!

Do you feel that every American has a right to possess any weapon "for the defence(sic) of themselves and the state"?
After all, a hand gun, rifle or shotgun may well provide personal protection however, when protecting the state, well perhaps a howitzer or B1 bomber might be more appropriate! Should we place limits on what is appropriate for personal use or would that violate someone's rights in your opinion? :shrug:

Please don't place words in my mouth about how I'm "so eager to take away an inalienable right"! :)

I've spent the better part of the last two months working day and night 7 days a week to defend your right to have your vote count. Without that right intact, what else matters?

I could go into great detail about both sides of this issue and give you a complete rational for my views on where I believe the line should be drawn to balance an individuals "right to bear arms" against the limits that, IMHO, should be placed on who should be allowed to posses weapons and how many of what type of weapons they should be allowed to posses. I have more important things to do right now.


Just for the record, I do not now, nor have I ever owned a gun. :)
I can do more damage just using the laws of physics and materials around my home than I could ever do with a gun! :wow:

[jody]

50. You're right, it is "all or nothing" , Your other comments ramble

into nowhere land and ignore the basic facts. US citizens have an inalienable right to defend self and property. As an inalienable right, it cannot be given away.

It it is a fact that government is not required to protect the individual. If you choose not to exercise your inalienble right, that is your decision but don't blame others if they don't come to your aid.

It is also a fact that those without inalienable rights to self defense, i.e. criminals and law enforcement officers in their capacity as officers, choose a handgun.

Twenty eight states acknowledge that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state. The same arms are used to defend self and state, and SCOTUS has ruled that the proper arm is arms that are customarily used for military duties. Today that is the M-9 pistol and M-16 rifle.

I challenge you to refute a single statement I made above.

[Cthulu_2004]

39. Police...

show up after the crime is committed and draw chalk outlines around the victims. They do nothing to actively protect individuals before they are victimized...they're just there to try and clean up the mess, and maybe catch the perpetrators after the fact.

Unless, of course, you're talking about some kind of psychic police like in "Minority Report"... "He's thinking of committing a crime! Better arrest him!"

[TahitiNut]

42. You might be thinking about ...

... the California Supreme Court decision in Zelig v. County of Los Angeles. This is oft-cited. The principle, however, that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime is well-established. (IANAL, so I'll not attempt to brief on this.) Prosecution for "sins of omission" are typically limited to clearly defined duties. Laws address commission, not omission.

[Aaron]

51. Ty tahitinut (n/t)

[slackmaster]

18. Since when does "need" have anything to do with anything?

Other than prescription drugs. I don't need your help in determining what I should or should not own, and you don't need to be concerned with what's in my gun safe.

[-..__...]

29. Actually I have.

I work as a firefighter/EMT. I haven't specifically treated persons shot with an an AW but, I have worked on many gunshot victims. The type of firearm used is irrelevant and it's highly doubtful that the victim is concerned about whether they were shot with an AW, revolver or flintlock. OTOH, if lethality or massive trauma is your concern then incidents involving shotguns are more life threatening.

I'm informed and experienced enough to know that it's foolish and naive too fault the particular type of weapon used and not the person responsible for the crime.

Emotionalism is a poor substitute for common sense and education.

[-..__...]

30. Actually I have.

I work as a firefighter/EMT. I haven't specifically treated persons shot with an an AW but, I have worked on many gunshot victims. The type of firearm used is irrelevant and it's highly doubtful that the victim is concerned about whether they were shot with an AW, revolver or flintlock. OTOH, if lethality or massive trauma is your concern then incidents involving shotguns are more life threatening.

I'm informed and experienced enough to know that it's foolish and naive too fault the particular type of weapon used and not the person responsible for the crime.

Emotionalism is a poor substitute for common sense and education.

[Cthulu_2004]

38. sounds like it's a good thing you left that job...

because even if guns totally disappeared, it would still involve losing patients and having to tell their kin that they were dead.

Thanks for trying, though.

[jody]

41. The seminal SCOTUS case re "police not obligated to protect individual" is

DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Neither criminals nor law enforcement officers have an inalienable right to bear arms as a condition of their status, note a law enforcement officer’s right to bear arms is granted by government. Handguns are the tools of choice for criminals and law enforcement officers.

Citizens have an inalienable right to defend self and property, i.e. to “oppose crime” and as “potential victims”, they should be allowed to use the same tools used by those who commit crime and those who try to solve crimes.

[cthrumatrix]

10. there's more to this bill than assault weapons....READ CAREFULLY

I believe it extends to much smaller arms as well.

[CMT]

14. yes

eom.

[NickB79]

19. No, it should not be renewed

For all the good reasons mentioned so far. May I also include that, if you look at the statistics of gun-related homicide in the US, the rate started to fall in 1993, a full year before the 1994 AWB came into effect. Yet the AWB is often credited with the drop. How can a gun control bill cause crime to drop a year before it comes into effect?

[jody]

24. Your question can be misleading because one bill to extend the AWB,

discussed in the following thread, goes beyond current law. It is a classic example of the gun-grabbers saying one thing and writing a bill to do something else. The DU thread is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=2618&mesg_id=2618

The bill is
H.R.2038
Title: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

Among other things, the bill would:

Ban all semi-automatic shotguns. Bans Remington, Winchester, Beretta, Benelli, and other shotguns commonly used for hunting, trap, skeet, sporting clays, and self-defense. Bans them by banning their main component, called the "receiver" (Sec. 2(a)(30)(J)), and bans them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip" (Sec. 2(H)(ii) and (b)(42)). Any characteristic.

Bans all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip." (Sec. 2(a)(30)(D)(iii) and (iv), and (b)(41) and (42)). Any characteristic.

Bans target shooting rifles. Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."

[Aaron]

25. Ty for the info Jody - I hadn't seen the bill language yet (n/t)

[-..__...]

26. Absolutely not.

The AWB is nothing more than feel-good ineffective legislation that has broad appeal to no-nothings and sheeple who base their opinion on information gleaned from the media, movies and video games. It makes no sense and has no merit whatsoever.

However, as much as I would like to see the AW ban expire, I look at it as more than just being able to put a flash suppressor on my post-ban or being able to buy 30 rd mags at LEO prices. For myself, the real satisfaction
of having the ban expire would be it's significance in handing the bug-eyed feebs at Brady/VPC/MM a crushing defeat. The AW ban is their defining moment. Losing the AW ban would be a serious setback from which they'd never recover. It's not about magazine capacity or collapsible stocks. It's about reputation and saving face.

They know fully well that if they can't win on their number one issue, what chance do they have of passing any gun control legislation? That alone is worth more than adding on any cosmetic feature.

[jody]

33. Good point. AWB is their last stand. I hope it's not for the Dem party.

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

28. Of course it should

What kind of irresponsible lunatic wants these guns back on the street?

[slackmaster]

31. Two points to consider

1. The AW ban did not remove any weapons from "the streets".

2. Manufacturers simply removed the offending features and continued to make essentially the same firearms.

The AW ban is nothing but a vote loser for Democrats. Anyone who owns one or wants to own one or owns any firearm that might be reclassified as one is unlikely to vote for any Democrat. To hell with ideological purity on this issue. It's killing our party.

[ButterflyBlood]

40. only if Bush signs it

then a lot of people will refuse to vote for him and it benefits us. otherwise no since it'll hurt us politically.

[Fescue4u]

43. You mean the Democrat self destruction act of 1994?

Yea, we need to renew that like I need a hole in my head.

that single piece of legislation cost the Democrats the house and senate, then cost Gore Tennesee, which cost him the whitehouse.

But hey, its our funeral go ahead and renew it and remind everyone that all Democrats want is to take your gun.

Btw, this act did a great service to the firearms industry. After its passage, sales of AWB surged.

I've heard that more assault weapons have been sold 10 years after the ban, than the 10 years before the ban.

Want an ar-15? want an ak-47? Go down to your gun store and buy it..Oh the stock won't fold, but so what its just as deadly.

The only difference the AW ban made, was the reduce the number of Democrats who held office.

[jody]

44. Good point. AWB means ban Democratic office holders. eom

[Township75]

45. This renewal is a trap for Democrats

AWB is a trap for Democrats. Despite what Bush states, he is NOT serious that he will sign it if it reaches his desk.

The repubs see the writing on the wall, and know they are in dip shit. So they are hoping to make Dems repeat a mistake they made in 1994, which is attack gun rights of law abiding Americans.

He said he would pass this, hoping that the Dems would begin to push for it before and during 2k4. Then, they could count on the single gun issue voters, splitting the union vote, and locking up the rural vote to vote Repub at the expense of the Dems.

This assualt weapons ban is completely fucking stupid. It just bans scary looking guns that were replaced immediately with the same kind of gun minus a few cosmetic features. Only the gun fearing lunatics who are watching their precious anti gun agenda suffering constant defeats in the state legs and courtrooms support this bill.

[slackmaster]

46. What Bush said...

He said he would approve an extension of the EXISTING BAN. Taking him at his word, it is not at all clear how he would treat an EXPANDED ban like the ones under consideration.

[jody]

47. I posted this on another thread but it is very relevant here.

My summary of sponsors suggests that those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are doing their best to prevent independent voters from voting for a Democratic presidential candidate.

H.R.2038
Title: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

NUMBER BILL SPONSORS BY STATE
CA (25)
NY (16)
MA (8)
IL (7)
NJ (7)
FL (4)
MD (4)
CT (3)
PA (3)
TX (3)
HI (2)
OH (2)
RI (2)
AZ (1)
CO (1)
DC (1)
GA (1)
IN (1)
MI (1)
MN (1)
MO (1)
OR (1)
VA (1)
WA (1)

BILL SPONSORS BY STATE
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. AZ
Rep Becerra, Xavier CA
Rep Berman, Howard L. CA
Rep Capps, Lois CA
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. CA
Rep Farr, Sam CA
Rep Filner, Bob CA
Rep Harman, Jane CA
Rep Honda, Michael M. CA
Rep Lantos, Tom CA
Rep Lee, Barbara CA
Rep Lofgren, Zoe CA
Rep Matsui, Robert T. CA
Rep Miller, George CA
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille CA
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. CA
Rep Sanchez, Loretta CA
Rep Schiff, Adam B. CA
Rep Sherman, Brad CA
Rep Solis, Hilda L. CA
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete CA
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. CA
Rep Waters, Maxine CA
Rep Watson, Diane E. CA
Rep Waxman, Henry A. CA
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. CA
Rep DeGette, Diana CO
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. CT
Rep Larson, John B. CT
Rep Shays, Christopher CT
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes DC
Rep Brown, Corrine FL
Rep Deutsch, Peter FL
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. FL
Rep Wexler, Robert FL
Rep Lewis, John GA
Rep Abercrombie, Neil HI
Rep Case, Ed HI
Rep Davis, Danny K. IL
Rep Emanuel, Rahm IL
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. IL
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. IL
Rep Lipinski, William O. IL
Rep Rush, Bobby L. IL
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. IL
Rep Carson, Julia IN
Rep Capuano, Michael E. MA
Rep Delahunt, William D. MA
Rep Frank, Barney MA
Rep Markey, Edward J. MA
Rep McGovern, James P. MA
Rep Meehan, Martin T. MA
Rep Olver, John W. MA
Rep Tierney, John F. MA
Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. MD
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. MD
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. MD
Rep Van Hollen, Chris MD
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. MI
Rep McCollum, Betty MN
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy MO
Rep Andrews, Robert E. NJ
Rep Holt, Rush D. NJ
Rep Menendez, Robert NJ
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. NJ
Rep Payne, Donald M. NJ
Rep Rothman, Steve R. NJ
Rep Smith, Christopher H. NJ
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. NY
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. NY
Rep Crowley, Joseph NY
Rep Engel, Eliot L. NY
Rep Israel, Steve NY
Rep Lowey, Nita M. NY
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. NY
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. NY
Rep Nadler, Jerrold NY
Rep Owens, Major R. NY
Rep Rangel, Charles B. NY
Rep Serrano, Jose E. NY
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh NY
Rep Towns, Edolphus NY
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. NY
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. NY
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs OH
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. OH
Rep Blumenauer, Earl OR
Rep Brady, Robert PA
Rep Fattah, Chaka PA
Rep Hoeffel, Joseph M. PA
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. RI
Rep Langevin, James R. RI
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. TX
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila TX
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice TX
Rep Moran, James P. VA
Rep McDermott, Jim WA

[-..__...]

48. Hey...

I was in the middle of composing something similar when I had a browser crash! (damn Netscape 4.something-or-other) :)

WTF; I'll post it anyhow along with my own observational rant.

Not all gun owners are right-wing or Republicans.

Not all gun owners support Bush or his policies (just read what some people in the
gun related forums think of the "Patriot Act" or "Homeland Security"). Never mind his position
on the AWB.

Not all gun owners are members of the NRA (we've been screwed by them before and will continue to be).

A lot of gun owners will not vote for Bush if he signs any renewal of the AWB. However, many will
not vote Democratic, either. They'll either not vote or vote Libertarian. A plus for Democrats but hardly enough to ensurer a win.



Again, best policy is to drop or at least lighten up on gun control measures.

This really is a divisive issue and I also think an elitist one. The Democrats in Congress that most support gun control are all concentrated in the predictable Liberal bastion states.There are currently 97 cosponsors for HR 2038... the more extreme of the AW ban bills. By guesstimation, about 95% are from either
MA, CA, NJ, MD, NY, IL. The rest of the country really doesn't care or want to hear about this. There are 44 other states where gun control policies don't play well and for the sake of 6 this sort of bogus legislation is needed? Dems in those 44 states are placed in the precarious position of either supporting the party elite or voting against the wishes of their constituents.

There exists a small handful of over obsessive legislators with nothing but gun-control on the brain: Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Kennedy, Lautenburg, Conyers, Jackson-Lee, etc... ad nausem. Their agenda serves only themselves and does nothing to help the party.

Think about this: how many people whom are anti-gun will vote based on the gun control issue alone or at least prioritize it? How many here could care less or have a minor interest in it? It's a no brainer/no win situation. But, if 4 more years is what people want, then so be it. At least I'll still have my "black rifles'. :evilgrin:

[bluestateguy]

52. "assault" weapons

A rubber band is an "assault" weapon if you use it to attack someone.

[Terwilliger]

56. dammit I came up with it first!

oops! 2nd...WHOA! 3rd!

never mind :D

[mandan]

54. replace it with something useful.

no text

[Terwilliger]

55. whatever the hell that means

since there's no such animal as "assault weapons"

All weapons assault. A frying pan assaults.