Obama heeding lesson from ‘94 gun ban

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6383351.html#

Obama heeding lesson from ‘94 gun ban

By STEWART M. POWELL and JENNIFER A. DLOUHY WASHINGTON BUREAU
April 20, 2009, 9:29PM

WASHINGTON — The last time a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress banned civilian sales of military-style assault weapons, it took American voters just seven weeks to rebel.

They handed Republicans control of the House and the Senate for the first time in 40 years.

One of the casualties in the backlash was Rep. Jack Brooks, D-Beaumont, who sponsored the ban and then promptly lost his seat in Congress in 1994 after 42 years of service.

The lesson wasn’t lost on President Obama when Mexican President Felipe Calderon suggested reviving the defunct weapons’ ban to help combat drug cartel violence along the U.S.-Mexico border....

Remember this, people. Also, the gun-controllers 'allies', the DLC/Third Way/New Democrats (or whatever they
are calling themselves nowadays) have dumped the issue as it costs them votes.

[billyoc]

1. There's no way the DNC is going to touch the electoral black hole that is gun control ever again.

Hand wringers are just fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. Then why is it still in our party platform?

[billyoc]

7. For the same reason that protecting workers' rights is in there. Lip service.

[jody]

2. I'll believe "Obama heeding lesson from ‘94 gun ban" when he promises to veto any bill to renew AWB.

Until then, I'll believe his White House site statement that says he supports renewing AWB.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. Yep

[east texas lib]

3. Never fear...

As soon as the DLC and friends think they can swing it they'll try again. The political pendulum
swings back and forth as always.

[Hoopla Phil]

4. Yet we have THIS being proposed:

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=311723&

Read the requirements. This will effectively stop all gun shows through the bureaucratic red tape required to have one.

[doc03]

8. Heard a women named Kathy Wittenburg

on TYT this morning talking about the ASB. She actually said she doesn't want to take our guns away. Then starts talking about 17000 people a year committing suicide with a gun. I would be willing to bet very few if any of those were by what she calls an assault weapon. So you know damn well she is lying about not wanting to take guns away when she gives the deaths by suicide as a reason. Why would she bring up the suicide statistic as a reason to reinstate the ASB when nobody shoots
themselves with an AK-47? Then there is the 12000 murders each year, just how many of them are actually committed by an assault weapon? Then she talks about the number of accidental deaths by gun.
Are any of those by an assault weapon? There are by far more accidental deaths from auto accidents. Why not just ban cars after all owning or driving a car is no Constitutional Right?:argh:

[paulsby]

11. japan has a much higher suicide rate than us

and it's practically impossible to get ANY gun , let alone an assault weapon.

the lack of logic of these people is simply astounding.

[jody]

13. Agree, using gun-grabber logic if Japan gave everyone a gun it's suicide rate would decline. n/t

[paulsby]

14. what;s also interesting (and contrary to gun grabber "logic")

is that japanese americans have a high suicide rate as well.

what's the difference? in the US, they frequently USE guns to commit suicide, as compared to japan, where it's practically unheard of.

why? because guns are effective and available. and GIVEN a desire to commit suicide, they take the quick and effective way.

however, gun availability is clearly NOT the cause of the high suicide rate, as the high rate they have in japan proves.

iow, "it's the culture, stupid"

not the evul gunz.

[jody]

15. And it's political suicide to discuss cultural as a contributing factor to homicide rates in the US.

[jody]

12. Ban anyone who wants to ban inalienable/unalienable rights, SCOTUS calls them pre-existing rights.

[beevul]

9. But...but...but...

As our umm "coleagues" on the other side of the debate have sworn to all as they jump up and down, stamping thier feet like spoiled brats...


"guns had no effect on elections".


Time for a plate of crow for them, perhaps?

[jody]

10. Agree re "crow" but they'll exercise their right to freedom of speech to LIE about the right to keep

and bear arms.

For gun-grabber education I quote the current law of the land below.

SCOTUS said in D.C. v. Heller, “the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. . . . ‘{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.’”

SCOTUS recognizes the “DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS” made by PA (1776) and VT (1777) in their constitutions, “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights (VT substituted unalienable), amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. . . . That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.