Imagine if H.R. 1022 had become law and Attorney General Eric Holder had unilateral authority to ban

[jody]

essentially all semiautomatic firearms.

H.R. 1022 {110th Congress}: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

* * * * * * * * * * * *

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

Attorney General Eric Holder said "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons".

Can you image the damage Holder could have done to the Democratic Party if H.R. 1022 from the 110th Congress had passed giving him the unilateral authority to ban essentially all semiautomatic firearms?

[sandnsea]

1. Imagine if you spent this much energy

worried about the ones you insist you need the guns to protect you from - you know, the tyrannical government that the gun nuts supported for the last 8 years, and more.

[Chulanowa]

2. Hell, if htey spent this much energy on something productive...

Such as building a life-size sculpture of Regis Philbin out of their own toenail trimmings...

Ah well. Some people have Magic cards. Some people have hentai collections. Others have guns, I suppose.

[benEzra]

6. Given that the DLC's original AWB fraud handed repubs the House and Senate in '94

and the White House in '00, and given the challenges other than protruding rifle handgrips the country faces at the moment, the IDIOCY of wasting political capital pushing another AWB should be readily apparent.

Proposing to ban the most popular civilian rifles in the nation makes little sense at any time, but particularly now.

[sandnsea]

9. Contract With America

had absolutely nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the economy and a stagnant government that Republicans managed to blame on Democrats.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ContractwithAmerica.html

The only reason people don't support gun control today is that they're sick of listening to the gun addicts whine, which is pretty pathetic since it means you've managed to silence mothers crying over their dead kids. Congratulations.

[benEzra]

11. The Contract with America was mostly empty BS.

Gingrich did, however, shrewdly maneuver gullible gun-404 DLC'ers into passing a pointless but radioactive law they knew little about, and rode the entirely predictable backlash into the Speaker's chair.

From President Clinton's autobiography My Life, on the 1994 debacle:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

And Gore lost TN (his own home state) and heavily-union, mostly-Dem WV in 2000 over the gun issue; with those two states, he'd have won the electoral college without Florida. And without the gun issue, Gore would have won Florida by a recount-proof margin; they don't call it the "Gunshine State" for nothing, and yes, the gun issue was huge there in 2000.

Fighting to ban the most popular civilian rifles in the United States is just a bad idea all around.

[jody]

12. Apparently Pelosi and Reid have finally learned the lesson you state so clearly. I wish this topic

was not always exiled to DU's Guns Fortress because it will take many repeated posts like yours in GD to show that those who would ban handguns or assault weapons or all guns are ignoring the 70%+ of voters who support RKBA.

[sandnsea]

13. As is everything that comes from the Republicans

including the campaign against the assault weapons ban. Empty BS, except the gun lobby has enough money for the gun wedge to work.

[benEzra]

14. Except the repubs at the Brady Campaign and their friends in the MSM

are the ones supporting it. Don't forget, the "assault weapon" fraud was pushed by Third Way DLC types, not liberals, as a way to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning authoritarians. And a lot of the people an AWB would affect are Dems and indies (as in 1994), since only half of gun owners are repubs and 80% are nonhunters.

You do realize that "assault weapon" is scare-speak for the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, yes? That more Americans own them than hunt, not even counting the tens of millions who would be affected by the 1860's-era magazine capacity limits?

Agree or disagree with the concept of a new Protruding Handgrip Ban, but to pretend a new ban would be noncontroversial among Dems, indies, and moderate repubs is mistaken.

[LuisCipher]

16. Such disregard for the Constitution.

Dismissing the 2nd Amendment as a "wedge issue", nice. Maybe we can just call the 1st Amendment an annoying quirk. Sad day.

[sandnsea]

17. Prayer is used as a wedge issue too

As is the press, pornography, speech, all kinds of things. Quit being hyperbolic. There's nothing unConstitutional about regulating gun sales and ownership.

[benEzra]

18. There is plenty unconstitutional about banning the most popular civilian rifles in America...

as such a ban would violate the "common use for lawful purposes" test established by U.S. v. Heller.

If the most popular centerfire target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation aren't "in common use for lawful purposes," then NOTHING is.

[LuisCipher]

19. Quite a jump you made there

From banning to regulating.

Maybe you can tell who's trying to ban the press? Please show me someone?

[sandnsea]

20. We've banned weapons for a century

Nothing new about it.

People are always going to court over the rights of the press and speech. Why pretend otherwise.

[benEzra]

23. That doesn't mean sweeping bans on the most common forms of political speech in America

would automatically be constitutional just because bans on child porn are OK.

Likewise, restrictions on automatic weapons, outlawing possession of any gun by a convicted felon, etc. don't mean that banning the most popular civilian guns in America would be constitutional, either. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the "assault weapon" fraud fails the U.S. v. Heller common-use-for-lawful-purposes test on its face.

[Abq_Sarah]

28. It's not a "right"

If you have to ask permission, pay a fee or jump through hoops.

[krispos42]

21. It's only a wedge issue if the other side lets it become one

If it wasn't important, gunguys.com and the Brady Campaign would just shrug and go away. Wedge issue solved.

However, they aren't. The anti-gun lobby also has enough money for the gun wedge issue to work. They're pushing their agenda on gun owners and it's driven by every bit of hysterical fear-mongering as what the NRA turns out during an election year.

I think of lot of this is from the standpoint that "there are two valid sides to everything" mentality, which means that if one side is pro-something, the other party must be anti-something.


We need more political parties. This binary system we have just isn't broad enough.

[gorfle]

25. In other words...

The only reason people don't support gun control today is that they're sick of listening to the gun addicts whine, which is pretty pathetic since it means you've managed to silence mothers crying over their dead kids. Congratulations.

In other words, we're winning. Congratulations indeed, thanks.

[gorfle]

24. I did.

Imagine if you spent this much energy worried about the ones you insist you need the guns to protect you from - you know, the tyrannical government that the gun nuts supported for the last 8 years, and more.

I did, and voted Democratic in the last two elections to put such tyrants out of office.

Now, kindly don't bite my hand.

[one-eyed fat man]

29. LOOK IN THE MIRROR........

Look at the LOSS of Congress in 1994 and eights years of desolation caused by the gun control advocates who got the satisfaction of passing a stupidly written ineffective law passed to placate stupid people.And so damnably PROUD of losing Congress over it the had to mention it in the 1996 party platform.

You said in another post "dick swinging gun nuts supported Republicans for 8 years." What you won't admit is that stupid elitist gun-control freaks drove them to it!

[Mugweed]

3. Horror of horrors!

I truly think that given the choice between a 3rd term of GW Bush and no AWB, or Obama and the AWB, you guys would choose Bush.

[jody]

4. ROFL All we pro-RKBA Dems ask is that Obama honor his promise, "I believe in the Second Amendment.

I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

[jmg257]

8. If we wanted a 3rd term of Bush we would have voted for McCain. That aside,

I would always choose freedom over unconstitutional bans and infringmnets.

[slackmaster]

10. That makes you wrong

:hi:

[Tim01]

22. Maybe not the guys here.

But there is a whole shitload of people who identify as democrat or independent who will vote strictly along the lines of the second amendment, especially after the last AWB. If the dems push gun control again it will be another massive loss on capitol hill. As the democratic leadership has already shown it will push an anti second amendment agenda, and President Obamas website says he has every intention of pushing an anti second amendment agenda, there are LOTS of people who are keeping their fingers crossed. Obama is a great guy. But it is the fact that Bush is hated by EVERYBODY that caused the stomping the republicans got last election.
I don't know why so many democrats have such a problem with the second amendment, but if they go after guns again there will be a lot of people turning their backs on the democratic party permanently.

It sounds to me like you would be willing to wreck the entire democratic party to avoid allowing us to keep what we already have. Guns that are supported by our constitution.

Stop making it an either or decision.

[aikoaiko]

5. HR 1022 + Holder = scarey thought indeed.

I'm glad the bill was killed.

[jmg257]

7. Yep. Now imagine if HR45 passes and he gets carte blanche over the licensing/registration processes

of all handguns and most semis.

:scared:

[spin]

15. One man or woman should NEVER be given control over the definition...

of what qualifies as a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

What if one person were given the power to determine the meaning of "freedom of the press" and decided that it only applied to printed newspapers.

The Attorney General is not a elected official. Remember the role that Attorney General Gonzales played in the 2006 dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. Also the role that the Justice Department, under his leadership, played in the misuse of the Patriot Act to uncover personal information about U.S. citizens.

[glcanon]

27. Which is precisely what we have now

That's why there are multiple justices on the Supreme Court, so no one person decides.

In the proposed "Fairness Doctrine," who decides what is fair? And why just apply it to radio?
What is "too much income" ?
What is selective taxing (90%) on those you don't like or are jealous of? (ironically this bill was dropped when the idiots who proposed it finally fathomed that it was unConstitutional)

What is taking your earned income (tax money) and giving it to organizations that you don't support?

Many of us who are religious, and some who are not, are for life. I don't like the fact that federal tax dollars fund abortions in this country, and now in foreign countries. ONE MAN DECIDED THAT ISSUE. Not the Supreme Court.

I'm also no fan of professional protesters like ACORN. But they're just following in the shoes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Quanell X, who are masters of the shakedown. Rev. King, a good man, would be embarrassed for all of them.

Who decides what or whom is worthy in our Government?
Who precisely is govt? You? Me?
A: Some politician you didn't vote for in a district you never heard of.

How about let me keep more of my earned income, then I can choose to whom to donate it, in the locality of my choosing..

If a cause, charity, organization or person is worthy, they will get contributions by those who are like-minded. How dare Uncle Sam choose for us, what an insult. And who exactly is Uncle Sam? (see the answer above)

What if the next administration and/or next Congress decided that $31 million of your tax dollars should be redistributed to the NRA, perhaps as political payback? How would you feel?

What I'm getting at is that govt (and those in it) isn't worthy. What is govt other than imperfect humans, rewarding those who helped get them elected?

What is an earmark, other than a reward to someone for something that didn't hv the merit to stand up to a vote on its own? If such cause is worthy, then it should be put to a vote of all members of Congress.

What are they afraid of? SCRUTINY? PUBLIC OUTRAGE? Damn straight. So they slip their earmarks in, in the dark of night, and the bill gets voted on BEFORE anyone even gets a chance to read it. THIS IS TRANSPARENCY? THIS IS IDIOCY!

I say let the workers keep their money (or at least more of it), they'll reward the people or organizations they feel do the most good and are most worthy.

Most of us manage our household incomes/budgets far better than our slothful govt. And our charitable donations go to WORTHY causes (or at least worthy in our own minds).

And BTW, the Atty General as well as U.S attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Each president has the right to dismiss, though it's usually done by his hatchet-man (usually chief of staff or Atty General). I never understood the big hoopla. Democrats & Republicans alike do this every time there's a change in administration. The hatchet drops. Don't believe me, ask professional moving companies in the DC area...

[Vini_Vidivici]

26. Nevermind the.........

.........damage to the Democratic Party, it would just be totally unConstitutional.

Hard to understand the "logic" behind some of these agendas. In all seriousness, I have considered things objectively, and fail to see the logic.

Holding ideals up against the ultimate measures, which to me, as an American, are only the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.....................an excellent and simple benchmark, these anti-freedom ideas are disturbing.

It never ceases to amaze me that folks just can't understand that laws only have affects on the LAW-ABIDING. Criminals do not, and will not ever follow laws...........this is the definition of a criminal. Criminals will always use and carry whatever weapons they wish. How can innocent, freedom-loving Americans be stripped of the right to defend themselves?