Posted: 10/29/2008 5:26:58 PM EDT
| so a guy a know thinks that if another awb is passed, then eotechs and other ar-15 optics would be banned as well. this has gotten me somewhat paranoid. Is this a legitimate fear or no? |
|
Quoted:
If you think it is going to be a clear cut fight where you'll know to finally stand up and fight for our freedom you are mistaken. Read "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to get a taste for how it's going to go down. They're going to come quietly in the night and you're going to come quietly down to the station to clear things up because you're an honest guy who's never done anything wrong and there must be a mistake that you'll clear up no problem. But you're probably going to go to a work camp in Canada or something. Your neighbours will be told you were a bad sort. And they'll believe the authorities. And you won't be heard from again. And all our collective tough talk of SHTF "what if" scenarios, and "they'll never take my [fill in blank]" will all be so much hot air. Man, we won't even get our guns out of the safe, let alone get a shot off. Me worried? Maybe just a little. This sounds more realistic than anything I have read on here in a long time. Good post |
|
I don't even think the fear of another AWB is legit to be honest. There are so many other more "productive" issues for the Dems that won't hurt them half as much. Add in the Heller decision to that atmosphere and I have zero worry. Don't think the Dems wouldn't ban guns in a heartbeat, but right now, it isn't on the party radar. Iraq, the economy, and the GWOT are their bread and butter right now. |
ORLY? thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1022: |
|
An excert directly from then Obama/Biden website: Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. Link to source: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/ |
I don't agree. I am not an "alarmist", but I DO think that an assault weapons ban is still on the table. The Heller decision has nothing to do with assault weapons, it merely contradicts the District Of Columbia's ban of a persons individual right to own a gun. They could still argue in circles about "common sense" regulations about guns that are ONLY meant to kill humans! I doubt that there would be anything that would be legislated overnight, but the "backdoor" approach of incrementalism would sooner or later be too alluring to Democrats to pass up. I can't see red dots as being on the "banned" list though. Besides, they could not easily disallow the hundreds of thousands of these products that are already in circulation. Worst case scenario would be to ban future production for civilian use, which would in turn cause prices to go up. This is unrealistic with sights, but still possible (if not likely) with the dreaded black rifles. hinking.gif |
|
1st of all fuck obama . sighting devices are not sold as guns and i dont believe they could ever ban somthing like that , it would be in the same lines as banning glass windows because they can cut you and besides EO tech pays a huge amount of taxs there not ever going to be banned |
|
I hear they're actually just going to ban fingers. Seriously none of the awb renewals have had any traction to go anywhere and they don't even contain extreme things like bans on sights. Ignore people, they're mostly dumb.
And? Did it go anywhere? People introduce magazine bans and concealed carry laws in illinois each year. Neither wins but it makes each side feel good to have their cause talked about. |
|
Anyone who thinks an AWB is off the table is clueless. Remember Clinton? The entire campaign was economy whining, social security, and all the other democrat "priorities" ....what did Bubba go after FIRST??? You guessed it. They went after our guns. No different this time around. With the GWOT, the economy, healthcare/entitlements, gas prices this and that and 100 other issues the left seems to be heavily focused on - mark my words fellas, they WILL find some time for an AWB or some form of gun control EARLY on. They are poised to have control of the Whitehouse, the House and the Senate. Democrats are the very first to downplay the importance and significance of gun control in politics. But it is one of their most passionate issues. Because of that, it is one of their most quiet issues. Not so much to folks like us in the gun-culture. On a national stage, we've heard nothing so far. Democrats know it is a loser. Which is why they want to cement a good solid majority that can sustain a hit in 2010. Primary gun control objectives: AWB National .50 BMG ban Gunshow loophole Lesser items include: AP ammo standards/bans Child proofing (keep 'em locked up all the time) Gun registration by databasing 4473's and other traceable transactions. Create/Add new standards for denying gun ownership. Executively .... Obama with a stroke of the pen can kill off all Russian ammo import. Use the excuse that it is a diplomatic move. Given the nature of US/Russian affairs, it won't be questioned. CMP will be effected. BATFE will be empowered. All kinds of standards, procedures, forms can be changed. Think sporting purposes clause. We will probably see the end of any kind of remotely military pattern rifle import. They want what California has. They want to ban the AK by action type. Clinton banned the sale of US military surplus ammo to civilians. Maybe Obama will finish the job by banning the sale of military surplus components to civilians. That was the work-around after all. If they couldn't sell the ammo, they took it apart and sold the components which got around the Clinton EO. I doubt they will ban any type of optic. However, they would LIKE to. They'd probably want some type of standard like any optic designed for shooting humans. That would mean anything with a rangefinder meant for humans. I don't think mildot would count as it is a generic rangefinding reticle. Dragunov could fall under that standard easily. Then again, they could consider the mildot as MILitary. Reason and logic and facts have nothing to do with their standards. Really, when it comes to gun - they're not worried about optics. They want your guns. They work down the list according to effectiveness. Which is the most effective aspects of a firearm? I can name the most important. MAGAZINE CAPACITY. Which is the main component of any AWB to come. They don't want some AWB based on brands or types of rifle. They want the magazine capacity ban. It effects pistols. It effects other types of rifles. Second after that would be the fact that the weapon has a detachable magazine. These are the two most fundamental innovations that have made firearm more effective. Not endless stupid caliber debates. Rapid fire. The quest for a better repeater. What did they ban first in 1934? Full autos. They're going down the line. They do want AP ammo standards but it is tough to do since they have no divide/conquer tactic since hunting ammo will fall under this category. The idiot hunters who sell out black rifle people to this day pose a problem for gun banners. That is, until they're done with black rifles and they move on to these evil "scoped armor piercing sniper rifles" that every deer hunter has. The .50BMG is the exception. California got the ban. That is a test state for future national legislation. They will say the .50 has no sporting purpose. The .50 is a legitimate freedom keeping weapon platform. IE, it is effective. Defeats body armor, defeats armored vehicle armor. Forces opponents to have to purchase significantly heavier vehicles adding expense to budgets. Sounds radical? That's the game that is played that no one wants to talk about out loud. Bottom line, these rifles ARE effective. Therefore, they're days are numbered. They're just going to go down the list. The list of effectiveness. Your optics are safe.....for now. What good is your ACOG when you can't buy an AR to put it on? |
Never left committee because they knew W would have vetoed the damned thing. That won't be the case after the election... 
|
|
Since when were democrats in congress ever concerned with being productive. Reinstatement of the AWB is part of their official party platform, so it's definately on their radar. As for the OP's question, I haven't heard anything about this. But since optics are not constitutionally protected items, you shouldn't consider them off the table. As rediculous is it may be to ban them, there's nothing much we could do to contest it in court if it passed. |
Then why didn't it leave committee with Dems controlling everything? I know Bush said that, but if it came down to it, I'm not sure what he would've done... |
Thats sort of the point, the votes aren't there for it no matter how hardcore a group of anti's would love for such a thing to pass. AWB renewals have been introduced every year since the old one ended. It doesn't imply success anymore than introduction of bills allowing ccw in IL means we're about to get concealed carry. Could this change in the future? Sure, a poor economy is one of those things that actually leads to a higher crime rate and that can lead to calls for gun control. For the past several years though gun sales have been through the room, concealed carry rates are way up, and the votes haven't been there in a democratically controlled congress to pass any awb to a president that promised to sign such a bill. Even in Illinois, which has a strong anti-gun reputation, the chicago law makers can't get the votes required to push chicago style bans state wide. |
you hit that right on |
Overriding a presidential veto requires 2/3 of the House AND the Senate, which means that the Dems would need a net gain of at least 56 seats in the House and another 16 seats in the Senate for a veto-proof majority. I don't see both of those (or either, really) being likely this cycle. |
|
I know it's possible. I said it wasn't likely. Given the seats in both houses that are up for grabs this year the Dems will definitely make some gains, but if you examine it on a race-by-race basis there's no reason to think that those gains will be as dramatic as what's needed for a veto-proof majority. |
| This election may in fact lead to some Unintended Consequences. You may want to get a copy before it is banned as seditious material. I really don't put anything past those fools in Washington DC. The truth is that the general population doesn't see a real need for black rifles any more as long as they get their rebate (welfare) checks. The politicians will have the country bought and paid for until Joe public feels wronged enough to start shooting. So Buy buy buy! |
| a good friend told me that she had a dream she was in a compound with the wire around the fence facing inward(like to keep u in)and there were rooms full of guns of all kinds,but no AMMO!!!!! this dream was to be set in the future.this was more than a year ago ammo has almost triple in price in this short of time we all know that ,so if they stop the import of ammo and control the rest, then what sling shots?????? just something too think about. |
Banning guns would also be nuts.. if anything they should set up some kind of task force and put the money in that. to try to get all the guns off the streets and take them away from the bad guys not the good guys.. |
|
The 2nd Amendment is about regulating the militia to keep the state free. Read the constitution and note how many times "militia" is used vs. "army". It is embarrassing how we've let the illiberals dictate the definitions of the debate for so many years that everyone assumes "regulated" means well equipped and that the founders were talking about a well equipped militia. Total nonsense. Then that would be the only use of that word in that way in the history of written English. Merriam Webster says "regulate" means: "to govern or direct according to rule". That means to control right? So read the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So it clearly means that a well controlled militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Read thus, using a real definition of the word regulated, demonstrates that the people had the right to bear arms to control the militia. Our country was founded on the principle that we the people would, for the first time in modern history, control the government -- not the other way around. What a crazy state we're in that no one can read this for what it is. California lawyer Gregory Hartlett advocates the interpretation explained above, by the way. What does that mean to the question at hand? That the last thing any Democrat wants is the power to control the army or the government to be in the hands of the people. Therefore, any firearm, firearm accessory, or ordinance, that is effective at killing soldiers and/or police will eventually be on the list of things Democrats want to ban in order to completely remove any possibility of the people controlling their government when they no longer want to be controlled by it. California already bans infrared illuminators. I see no reason why Eotech sights wouldn't be targeted in the future. The argument, of course, will be that they serve no sporting purpose and are not necessary for deer hunting, etc. Again, totally dictating the terms of the debate -- as if sporting purposes had anything to do with it. And I wouldn't bet two wooden nickles on relying on the Heller decision for much. First, has Heller even been incorporated yet? Second, and more important, one may want to read Heller carefully. I come away with the feeling that a state or municipality could ban all guns and all ammunition except that one blackpowder pistol, one single lead slug, and one charge of powder, that one is allowed to keep only in their home, under lock and key, or in a more liberal reading, a single revolver and no more than six rounds of .38 special, and the state or local government would not be in violation of Heller. But who the hell cares anyway, no one got off their butt for the most important election -- the primary elections! -- and we were stuck with lame McCain. The Supreme Court already has, and has had, a liberal majority. One wishy washy guy sometimes votes for what is right, but he is going to retire, along with at least one dinosaur ACLU lawyer who should never have been allowed in front of the Supreme Court, let alone in it, and B. Hussein Obama is going to appoint two, much younger, left wing radicals and the Court will continue its degradation of The Constitution and theft of our country for years to come. If you think it is going to be a clear cut fight where you'll know to finally stand up and fight for our freedom you are mistaken. Read "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to get a taste for how it's going to go down. They're going to come quietly in the night and you're going to come quietly down to the station to clear things up because you're an honest guy who's never done anything wrong and there must be a mistake that you'll clear up no problem. But you're probably going to go to a work camp in Canada or something. Your neighbours will be told you were a bad sort. And they'll believe the authorities. And you won't be heard from again. And all our collective tough talk of SHTF "what if" scenarios, and "they'll never take my [fill in blank]" will all be so much hot air. Man, we won't even get our guns out of the safe, let alone get a shot off. And no one even realizes how fleeting free democracies are in the world. Can you think of a single (real, not just in name) democratic system older than the United States? Do you have any idea how many governmental system the so-called "enlightened" French have had since the people supposedly freed themselves in 1789? I invite you to look it up, it might shock you. I think one would have to be naive not to see the United States as more than a little long in the tooth and ripe for, how shall I say it, "CHANGE". I wouldn't count on one being able to recognize the USA in fifty years. Me worried? Maybe just a little. |
|
Quoted:
I don't even think the fear of another AWB is legit to be honest. There are so many other more "productive" issues for the Dems that won't hurt them half as much. Add in the Heller decision to that atmosphere and I have zero worry. Don't think the Dems wouldn't ban guns in a heartbeat, but right now, it isn't on the party radar. Iraq, the economy, and the GWOT are their bread and butter right now. It's in their platform for crying out loud - but, admittedly, is probably overshadowed by other, worse things they're aiming for. |
|
Obama said from his mouth that he dosent want to take away guns he just dosen't see the point of a hunter that needs 17 rounds to take a animal. That right there should tell you something. HUNTERS are already on his slate for change. Which means regular hunting rifles. Now with that said. If he wants hunting rifle changes you should now that there will probably be some kind of ban on assault rifles.
The ar-15 platform, AKs, SKS anything military looking already has a bad name. Think about it. They are called ASSAULT RIFLES! When people hear the word ASSAULT they automatically think BAD. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. If a criminal wants a gun he will get one. If seen more convicted felons with guns on them then I can shake a stick at. These laws hurt collectors, small gun stores, hobbist and the average law biding citizen. 
|
That guy is a dumbass!! Why would they ban optics?
|
The Dems will be busy if they win; however - don't think they won't push for some kind of gun/ammo legislation given the chance.
The only real voice we will have is the same one we had last time - vote out anti-gun congress BEFORE they have a chance. We need some more litigation - a short cut to defeat legislation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't even think the fear of another AWB is legit to be honest. There are so many other more "productive" issues for the Dems that won't hurt them half as much. Add in the Heller decision to that atmosphere and I have zero worry. Don't think the Dems wouldn't ban guns in a heartbeat, but right now, it isn't on the party radar. Iraq, the economy, and the GWOT are their bread and butter right now. ORLY? thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1022: Had almost zero support in a Democrat controlled Congress. They could have passed it if they wanted to. 60 out of 200 something Democrats. 25% support maybe? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hear they're actually just going to ban fingers. Seriously none of the awb renewals have had any traction to go anywhere and they don't even contain extreme things like bans on sights. Ignore people, they're mostly dumb. ORLY?
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1022: And? Did it go anywhere? People introduce magazine bans and concealed carry laws in illinois each year. Neither wins but it makes each side feel good to have their cause talked about. Never left committee because they knew W would have vetoed the damned thing. That won't be the case after the election... No, as a matter of fact, W stabbed us ALL in the back and said that if it reached his desk he WOULD sign it. I could not agree more that we are facing a great danger to our 2nd Amendment rights, Heller or no Heller, the Dems know that any ban they impose, and they will if given the chance, will be tied up in litigation so long that they will have three justices replaced before it ever reaches the US Supreme Court. This is not a time for wishful thinking or interpreting Democratic strategies, this is a time for all of us to realize that if we value ANY of our rights, then we have to hit the polls on the 4th. If they are willing to attack the 2nd Amendment today, which one will they target tomorrow? BravoSix out. Oh not this fucking load of shit again! Had he wanted an AWB he would have had one. He took the issue away from dems by saying go ahead and pass it, I'll sign it, knowing full well they never would after 1994. It was a deft political movie, it boxed them in and forced them to push it if they wanted it. They couldn't push it and lose and blame the president because there is a risk that he would sign it (he wouldn't) and they would get their asses handed to them in their elections that November. Some of you have no fucking clue how politics is played. And that is probably a good thing, because it is positively disgusting most of the time. But give me a break, if Bush supported an aWB there would be one. |
|
Quoted:
1st of all fuck obama . sighting devices are not sold as guns and i dont believe they could ever ban somthing like that , it would be in the same lines as banning glass windows because they can cut you and besides EO tech pays a huge amount of taxs there not ever going to be banned Perhaps they couldn't ban the scopes themselves, but the previous assault weapon ban didn't ban flash-hiders or collapsible stocks either. A new AWB could very well ban the installation of tactical, red-dot scopes on semi-auto rifles. |
|
Quoted:
I don't even think the fear of another AWB is legit to be honest. There are so many other more "productive" issues for the Dems that won't hurt them half as much. Add in the Heller decision to that atmosphere and I have zero worry. Don't think the Dems wouldn't ban guns in a heartbeat, but right now, it isn't on the party radar. Iraq, the economy, and the GWOT are their bread and butter right now. 
If they have Obama they will, they already nationalized our banks. |
|
Quoted:
The 2nd Amendment is about regulating the militia to keep the state free. Read the constitution and note how many times "militia" is used vs. "army". It is embarrassing how we've let the illiberals dictate the definitions of the debate for so many years that everyone assumes "regulated" means well equipped and that the founders were talking about a well equipped militia. Total nonsense. Then that would be the only use of that word in that way in the history of written English. Merriam Webster says "regulate" means: "to govern or direct according to rule". That means to control right? So read the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So it clearly means that a well controlled militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Read thus, using a real definition of the word regulated, demonstrates that the people had the right to bear arms to control the militia. Our country was founded on the principle that we the people would, for the first time in modern history, control the government –– not the other way around. What a crazy state we're in that no one can read this for what it is. California lawyer Gregory Hartlett advocates the interpretation explained above, by the way. What does that mean to the question at hand? That the last thing any Democrat wants is the power to control the army or the government to be in the hands of the people. Therefore, any firearm, firearm accessory, or ordinance, that is effective at killing soldiers and/or police will eventually be on the list of things Democrats want to ban in order to completely remove any possibility of the people controlling their government when they no longer want to be controlled by it. California already bans infrared illuminators. I see no reason why Eotech sights wouldn't be targeted in the future. The argument, of course, will be that they serve no sporting purpose and are not necessary for deer hunting, etc. Again, totally dictating the terms of the debate –– as if sporting purposes had anything to do with it. And I wouldn't bet two wooden nickles on relying on the Heller decision for much. First, has Heller even been incorporated yet? Second, and more important, one may want to read Heller carefully. I come away with the feeling that a state or municipality could ban all guns and all ammunition except that one blackpowder pistol, one single lead slug, and one charge of powder, that one is allowed to keep only in their home, under lock and key, or in a more liberal reading, a single revolver and no more than six rounds of .38 special, and the state or local government would not be in violation of Heller. But who the hell cares anyway, no one got off their butt for the most important election –– the primary elections! –– and we were stuck with lame McCain. The Supreme Court already has, and has had, a liberal majority. One wishy washy guy sometimes votes for what is right, but he is going to retire, along with at least one dinosaur ACLU lawyer who should never have been allowed in front of the Supreme Court, let alone in it, and B. Hussein Obama is going to appoint two, much younger, left wing radicals and the Court will continue its degradation of The Constitution and theft of our country for years to come. If you think it is going to be a clear cut fight where you'll know to finally stand up and fight for our freedom you are mistaken. Read "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to get a taste for how it's going to go down. They're going to come quietly in the night and you're going to come quietly down to the station to clear things up because you're an honest guy who's never done anything wrong and there must be a mistake that you'll clear up no problem. But you're probably going to go to a work camp in Canada or something. Your neighbours will be told you were a bad sort. And they'll believe the authorities. And you won't be heard from again. And all our collective tough talk of SHTF "what if" scenarios, and "they'll never take my [fill in blank]" will all be so much hot air. Man, we won't even get our guns out of the safe, let alone get a shot off. And no one even realizes how fleeting free democracies are in the world. Can you think of a single (real, not just in name) democratic system older than the United States? Do you have any idea how many governmental system the so-called "enlightened" French have had since the people supposedly freed themselves in 1789? I invite you to look it up, it might shock you. I think one would have to be naive not to see the United States as more than a little long in the tooth and ripe for, how shall I say it, "CHANGE". I wouldn't count on one being able to recognize the USA in fifty years. Me worried? Maybe just a little. Yawn, you fail. Period. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't even think the fear of another AWB is legit to be honest. There are so many other more "productive" issues for the Dems that won't hurt them half as much. Add in the Heller decision to that atmosphere and I have zero worry. Don't think the Dems wouldn't ban guns in a heartbeat, but right now, it isn't on the party radar. Iraq, the economy, and the GWOT are their bread and butter right now. ORLY? thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1022: That has sat in a committee, for almost 2 years, with both houses controlled by the Democrats and a president who said he'd sign an AWB. Seriously, do people even think before they refer to HR1022? |
|
Quoted:
I don't even think the fear of another AWB is legit to be honest. There are so many other more "productive" issues for the Dems that won't hurt them half as much. Add in the Heller decision to that atmosphere and I have zero worry. Don't think the Dems wouldn't ban guns in a heartbeat, but right now, it isn't on the party radar. Iraq, the economy, and the GWOT are their bread and butter right now. for whom are you voting? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
1st of all fuck obama . sighting devices are not sold as guns and i dont believe they could ever ban somthing like that , it would be in the same lines as banning glass windows because they can cut you and besides EO tech pays a huge amount of taxs there not ever going to be banned Perhaps they couldn't ban the scopes themselves, but the previous assault weapon ban didn't ban flash-hiders or collapsible stocks either. A new AWB could very well ban the installation of tactical, red-dot scopes on semi-auto rifles. The previous ban did infact ban collapsable stocks and flash hiders. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hear they're actually just going to ban fingers. Seriously none of the awb renewals have had any traction to go anywhere and they don't even contain extreme things like bans on sights. Ignore people, they're mostly dumb. ORLY?
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1022: And? Did it go anywhere? People introduce magazine bans and concealed carry laws in illinois each year. Neither wins but it makes each side feel good to have their cause talked about. Never left committee because they knew W would have vetoed the damned thing. That won't be the case after the election... No, as a matter of fact, W stabbed us ALL in the back and said that if it reached his desk he WOULD sign it. I could not agree more that we are facing a great danger to our 2nd Amendment rights, Heller or no Heller, the Dems know that any ban they impose, and they will if given the chance, will be tied up in litigation so long that they will have three justices replaced before it ever reaches the US Supreme Court. This is not a time for wishful thinking or interpreting Democratic strategies, this is a time for all of us to realize that if we value ANY of our rights, then we have to hit the polls on the 4th. If they are willing to attack the 2nd Amendment today, which one will they target tomorrow? BravoSix out. Oh not this fucking load of shit again! Had he wanted an AWB he would have had one. He took the issue away from dems by saying go ahead and pass it, I'll sign it, knowing full well they never would after 1994. It was a deft political movie, it boxed them in and forced them to push it if they wanted it. They couldn't push it and lose and blame the president because there is a risk that he would sign it (he wouldn't) and they would get their asses handed to them in their elections that November. Some of you have no fucking clue how politics is played. And that is probably a good thing, because it is positively disgusting most of the time. But give me a break, if Bush supported an aWB there would be one. Yeah, a political move by alienating a large percentage of your base….right, I believe that. President Bush knew that he had used the gun toting right, (that is us) to win in 2004 and he did not need us anymore. It had nothing to do with “wanting” and AWB, it had everything to do with seeing if the “people wanted an AWB." He put himself into a “political” position to see where the pulse of the nation was going. If they demanded another ban and the Dems obliged, then he would sign it, if it died in committee and there was no widespread support, he would not have to address it. It was not just the fact that he said he would sign the AWB renewal if it came to his desk, I also seem to remember something about an amicus brief in response to Heller, stating that the administration did support the 2nd Amendment, but “should clarify that the right is subject to the more flexible standard of review”. This is basically saying that you as the individual can have the right, since it is in the Bill of Rights, but if the big bad government wants to limit it, we have the right to do that with no recourse. This still does not relinquish the fact that there has been two very ample opportunities for the President to support a large part of his base and go to bat for us. He decided to instead to side against us. I know how politics is played; working on a M.S. in Political Science will do that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hear they're actually just going to ban fingers. Seriously none of the awb renewals have had any traction to go anywhere and they don't even contain extreme things like bans on sights. Ignore people, they're mostly dumb. ORLY?
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1022: And? Did it go anywhere? People introduce magazine bans and concealed carry laws in illinois each year. Neither wins but it makes each side feel good to have their cause talked about. Never left committee because they knew W would have vetoed the damned thing. That won't be the case after the election... No, as a matter of fact, W stabbed us ALL in the back and said that if it reached his desk he WOULD sign it. I could not agree more that we are facing a great danger to our 2nd Amendment rights, Heller or no Heller, the Dems know that any ban they impose, and they will if given the chance, will be tied up in litigation so long that they will have three justices replaced before it ever reaches the US Supreme Court. This is not a time for wishful thinking or interpreting Democratic strategies, this is a time for all of us to realize that if we value ANY of our rights, then we have to hit the polls on the 4th. If they are willing to attack the 2nd Amendment today, which one will they target tomorrow? BravoSix out. He said he would sign it ONLY if it was an exact duplicate/renewal. Naturally, the Senate democrats were completely incapable of restraining themselves, and so cooked up an obnoxious expanded version of the ban. Up to that point the dem leadership had been singing loudly about how great it was that W said he'd sign it... until they figured out the fine print, then began to bitch loudly for a week or two that he was being dishonest. The AWB renewal never had a chance, and you CAN thank both the GOP and W for that. |
