Specter Says No To Assault Weapons Ban, WHY doesn’t Obama?

[jody]

Specter Says No To Automatic Weapons Ban {actually the Assault Weapons Ban, not Automatic Weapons Ban} (KDKA News, Pittsburgh)

They asked Congress to ban semi-automatic weapons like the one used to kill Pittsburgh police officers Kelly, Sciullo, and Mayhle. Today, Senator Arlen Specter said "no" to that request.

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

Specter -- endorsed by the National Rifle Association for reelection five years ago -- voted against the original ban in 1993 and its extension in 2004 -- and also voted against background checks at gun shows and waiting periods for hand-gun purchases.

"The courts have to be a lot tougher in enforcing the laws we have."
Specter says a weak criminal justice system is the problem -- not the weapons used by the accused, Richard Poplawski, to kill three police officers.

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

But other Second Amendment groups -- like Gun Owners of America -- say Specter has voted for bills that contain anti-gun provisions.

Now is the perfect opportunity for Obama to promise voters, “I will veto any bill to renew the assault weapons ban or other bill that infringes on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense”.

Obama backed up by Senators Baucus, Tester, Webb, Specter along with the 65 congresspersons who told Holder to back off on renewing AWB can help dispel the lie that the Democratic Party is the party of gun-grabbers.

[tridim]

1. Geez louise, do you care about anything but guns?

You're obsessed.

[jody]

2. I care about all equal rights, do you? n/t

[tridim]

4. Of course I do.

What does that have to do with your unhealthy obsession with guns?

[jody]

5. Then you care about the Second Amendment. Glad you are with me. n/t

[walkaway]

10. You should read the second amendment again.

If you are a well organized militia then you should be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Gunnies really like to stretch the meaning of those words. This may work with the locals but people who can read don't have to accept your fevered interpretation.

[JonLP24]

12. Not to mention 'arms' is a military term

order arms, report arms, lay down arms, present arms, take up arms, etc.

[jody]

14. Read D.C. v. Heller and find out how wrong you are. n/t

[JonLP24]

18. Don't flame me

I have no interest in banning guns or guns that are scary looking. I admit the 2nd amendment is pretty damn confusing the way it was originally written. I wish the founding fathers was more clear.

But I'm pretty confident 'arms' is military jargon.

[jody]

21. Please read D.C. v. Heller as I suggested because SCOTUS answers your question. n/t

[JonLP24]

32. I just read it and I still have the same confusion

There are dissenting opinions saying that the 2nd amendment applies to only state regulated militias. The decision was 5-4 so DC could've won if one of the Justices saw the 2nd amendment the same was the other 4.

Anyways back to my point no matter what the 2nd amendment says(because it don't understand it clearly) I personally have no desire to see all guns banned even the scary looking ones.

[jody]

38. Quoted below from page 7 of Heller:

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the
holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the
right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret
their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary
(1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter
Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that
were not specifically designed for military use and were
not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s
legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on
Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An
Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6,
p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104
(J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke,
42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts
construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler,
The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in
the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

[JonLP24]

46. Very good

I just read the Decision and Dissent section so I didn't see that. This is how myself defined 'Arms' was this part right here.

Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler,
The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in
the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Though it doesn't make the amendment any more clearer to me.

on edit: The bold wasn't my previous thought, the bold is something that informed about what I thought.

[gorfle]

155. But the court was unanimous on this point:

Though the decision overall was 5-4, the court was unanimous in its decision that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. All the justices agreed on that point.

[Winterblues]

37. You mean that EXTREME Right Wing Scotus the one that selected Bush*?

Of course they would rule that way. Do you agree with their Bush* v Gore decision as well? Ask any cop in America how they feel about it...

[jody]

40. You say "Ask any cop in America how they feel about it". I have and most LEO support RKBA so prove

your implication that they don't.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. Of course the liberal justices agreed the 2nd Amendment protected the INDIVIDUALS right to bear arms

[rollingrock]

81. The SCOTUS also handed Bush the election in 2000

they're opinions aren't exactly very credible these days.

[jody]

91. What does that have to do with the OP and thread? n/t

[MajorChode]

39. So you put more stock in "Fat Tony" and his merry band of GOP appointed misfit judges...

Than you do in more level headed judges like John Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. That doesn't mean you are right and everyone else who disagrees is wrong, it just means your opinions happen to coincide with the five most fucked up judges on the USSC. So if you choose to align yourself with the likes of "Fat Tony" Scalia and "Long Dong" Thomas, and accept their opinions as the absolute on the matter, good for you. Just don't start thinking that entitles you to any intellectual right of supremacy, because it doesn't.

Furthermore the DC v Heller decision only applies to very limited circumstances and any theoretical renewal of the '94 law and theoretical challenge could very well be decided under a very different court makeup.

[jody]

47. The dissents by Stevens and Breyer did not explicitly rule out RKBA being an unenumerated right

protected by the Ninth Amendment while recognizing the history behind the inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[MajorChode]

55. You obviously didn't read the dissents

Furthermore dissents don't "rule out" anything. They are simply a statement that they do not agree with the majority opinion.

Subsequent USSC rulings are not bound by previous USSC rulings. A future ruling could say something completely different.

[jody]

59. SCOTUS acknowledges stare decisis and please read DU link below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=177461

[MajorChode]

68. The USSC is not bound by stare decisis

And the link to your other thread proves absolutely nothing other than you have no clue regarding the intent of Steven's dissent.

Furthermore if you do actually think the USSC is bound by stare decisis, why do you suppose the court suddenly decided to answer a question that has been specifically rejected by the USSC for 74 years when no new evidence was presented?

[X_Digger]

70. SCOTUS has no opinion != SCOTUS has ruled like this..

You seem to be ascribing opinion to the SCOTUS refusing to hear a case. Most second amendment cases have been refused cert without comment.

[MajorChode]

80. I said nothing of an opinion

Stare decisis is not limited by simply opinions, it regards precedent. If you don't know what the term means, look it up.

Precedent obviously means nothing to "Fat Tony" and not just on this one issue, either.

There have been numerous challenges to the Miller decision on the "individual right" argument. The court has rejected them all because it considered the matter settled. So why do you think the court accepted this challenge at all with not one iota of new evidence? It's a rhetorical question, btw. Obviously you don't think about such things.

[X_Digger]

84. "all because it considered the matter settled"

^^ That is what I'm saying.. you're ascribing the opinion 'they consider the matter settled' to refusal to grant certiorari. 'without comment' does not mean 'the matter is settled'.

[MajorChode]

88. So why do you think they refused all the other challenges on the same grounds?

Again this assumes you can actually think rather than parrot out talking points, and I'm not convinced you have such virtues. So the question is mostly rhetorical.

[X_Digger]

97. 'without comment' means without comment..

.. feel free to play mind reader or dig up Warren and light a candle looking for an answer.

[MajorChode]

103. It doesn't mean without reason

...feel free to continue to talk yourself into circles of absurdity.

[jody]

77. I said "SCOTUS acknowledges stare decisis" not "USSC is bound by stare decisis". Please read more

carefully.

[MajorChode]

85. So your statement is even more irrelevant

I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, and that you couldn't possibly mean something so ridiculous. But don't worry, I won't underestimate your limits of absurdity again.

So call it whatever you want, the USSC can and has reversed and contradicted itself.

[jody]

92. No, the irrelevant things are your posts to this thread. Have a nice day. n/t

[MajorChode]

107. Well, irrelevant to you perhaps, but I think I'll somehow get past that, considering the source

Have a nice day.

[one-eyed fat man]

153. 74 years of bad law and you know it............

The notion that right to bear arms was not an individual right didn't gain much traction until Miller v US.

On April 18, 1938, the Siloam Springs police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). The district court dismissed the charges, holding the NFA violates the Second Amendment.

But gun control was a part of the New Deal program and legislation that would compel all sportsmen to register their firearms and store them in armories when they are not being used for hunting or target purposes had been proposed and was being debated in Congress.

So it was no surprise when Attorney General Homer Cummings, acted immediately to overturn the lower court judge, bypassing the Federal Appeals Courts and going directly to the USSC. The unprecedented speed with which the Federal government reacted was telling. From arrest to Supreme Court decision in under 11 months. Also curious, only the Solicitor General made arguments or briefed the appeal.

Makes one wonder, until you remember the Attorney General also said, “We certainly don’t expect gangsters to come forward to register their weapons and be fingerprinted, and a $200 tax is frankly prohibitive to private citizens.”

With no defense muddying the waters, it was the government’s ideal test case.

Sounds like your kind of judicial activism!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. It's settled law get over it. You lost we won.

[rl6214]

143. My god

Your shit dosen't stink does it. Just because they made a ruling YOU don't like you become juvenile and begin the name calling. Grow up.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. The Roberts court, which is WRONG on EVERYTHING else,

is suddenly right on this one.

uh huh.

There is no problem with the 2nd Amendment that can't be fixed by IGNORING its PRIMARY CLAUSE.

A well-regulated militia...

[jody]

48. See # 47. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. A well regulated militia... nt

[X_Digger]

58. Well regulated like your colon, not your bank. n/t

[jody]

60. See the law of the land discussion below.

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v.
Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the
Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense.” That definition comports
with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia
of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies,
regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to
attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other
times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist
No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)
(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”);
Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable
Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“he
militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able
to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia,
stating that “ilitias are the state- and congressionally-
regulated military forces described in the Militia
Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12.

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption
that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and
the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify
the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia.
Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the
power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a
Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by
Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the
power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15;
and the power not to create, but to “organiz” it—and not
to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if
the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize
“the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid.,
cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition
of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool,
Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will
make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress
did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each
and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective
states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the
age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years
(except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and
respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8,
1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript
every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in
Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize,
discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon
the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied
men, the federally organized militia may consist of
a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated
militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms”).

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. Who, exactly, is making these arguments?

And when are they making them.

Little details like this are important.

[jody]

73. This branch of the thread is re your statement "44. The Roberts court, which is WRONG on EVERYTHING

else, is suddenly right on this one."

I did not say that so I don't know why you want to sidetrack the discussion.

You jumped into an exchange between JonLP24 and I about the meaning of "arms" so what is your point?

[RaleighNCDUer]

83. So that would be the arguments made in 'Heller' by the most

right-wing, fascistic, corporate justices to have sat on the court since, oh, the Dred Scott decision?

As I said...

When have these guys judged ANYTHING right? And what makes THIS different?

[jody]

89. You assert "When have these guys judged ANYTHING right?" implying that every decision has been wrong...

Are you saying all the cases on the ACLU site were wrong?

SUPREME COURT CASES

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Pearson v. Callahan (8/12/2008)
Whether, absent an emergency, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to enter a home without a warrant based on an informant's signal that criminal activity is taking place inside. DECIDED

Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (9/5/2008)
Whether someone who was falsely imprisoned for 24 years based on the untrue testimony of a criminal informant can sue senior administrators in the prosecutor's office for their failure to maintain an even rudimentary record system that would have disclosed impeachment information about the informant prior to trial. DECIDED

Herring v. United States (8/1/2008)
Whether the exclusionary rule requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment when the Fourth Amendment violation was based on misinformation sent by law enforcement officials in another county. DECIDED

District Attorney's Office v. Osborne (2/2/2009)
Whether it violates due process to imprison someone who is actually innocent, and whether an inmate has a post-conviction right to obtain DNA evidence in the government's possession that could establish his innocence with total certainty.

Vermont v. Brillon (12/29/2008)
Whether delays caused by systemic deficiencies in a state's indigent defense system can ever be charged against the state in deciding whether a criminal defendant has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. DECIDED

Arizona v. Gant (4/22/2009)
Whether the police may search a car without a warrant after someone who has been arrested for driving with a suspended license is already handcuffed and sitting in the back of a police cruiser. DECIDED

Montejo v. State of Louisiana (11/25/2008)
Whether the police may interrogate an indigent defendant who has been assigned counsel without counsel present on the theory that the defendant never formally indicated that he accepted the appointment.


DISCRIMINATION
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (8/29/2008)
Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which generally prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded schools, bars public school students from also challenging sex discrimination as a violation of the Constitution.DECIDED

Crawford v. Nashville (8/1/2008)
Whether employees who cooperate with an internal investigation of alleged sexual harassment are protected against retaliation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. DECIDED

Ricci v. DeStefano (3/25/2009)
Whether a public employer may lawfully refuse to certify the results of a promotional exam when it has a strong basis in evidence to believe that the test violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of its discriminatory impact on minorities or women.


FREE SPEECH
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (8/7/2008)
Whether the FCC improperly reversed its position without adequate justification by recently holding that "fleeting expletives" represent "indecent" speech that can be banned from the airwaves.


IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS
Nijhawan v. Holder (3/4/2009)
Whether an immigration judge can engage in a wide-ranging inquiry to determine whether a prior conviction counts as an aggravated felony for deportation purposes or is instead limited to considering the elements of the crime.

Nken v. Mukasey (12/29/2008)
Whether federal law can be construed to make it more difficult for an alien facing removal from the country to obtain a temporary stay pending judicial review of the agency decision than to obtain a final judgment reversing the removal order. DECIDED


STUDENTS' RIGHTS
Safford Unified School District v. Redding (3/25/2009)
Whether school officials acted unconstitutionally by strip searching a 13-year-old girl based on the uncorroborated accusation of a fellow student and, if so, whether the strip search was so clearly unconstitutional that plaintiff is entitled to damages.


UNLAWFUL DETENTION
al-Marri v. Spagone (1/21/2009)
Whether a U.S. resident arrested in the U.S. can be indefinitely detained as an "enemy combatant" in a military brig without criminal charges or trial. CASE DISMISSED


VOTING RIGHTS
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Mukasey (3/23/2009)
Whether Congress properly exercised its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment when, in 2006, it extended the pre-clearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act 25 years based on an extensive record of ongoing discrimination against minorities in voting.

Bartlett v. Strickland (8/1/2008)
Whether minority voters who are deprived of the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice when a state court rejects a legislative district where coalition building has been successful can assert a vote dilution claim under the Voting Rights Act, even if minority voters do not represent 50 percent of the population in the proposed district? DECIDED


WOMENS' RIGHTS
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (8/29/2008)
Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which generally prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded schools, bars public school students from also challenging sex discrimination as a violation of the Constitution.DECIDED

[rl6214]

144. It really dosen't matter what you think

Your opinion dosen't matter.

[MajorChode]

101. To be fair, they didn't actually ignore it

The majority just wrote conflicting and ridiculous statements about it that served to insult the intelligence of anyone with more than 2 synapses actively firing.

[DrCory]

150. Wrong on Boumediene v. Bush? N/T

[gorfle]

156. They no longer exist.

A well-regulated militia...

The militias as intended and existed during our founders day, that is, bodies of state-loyal troops designed to either eliminate the need for, or at least counter, federal military troops, no longer exist, and have not since the militias were federalized in 1903.

The only entities of the second amendment still able to fulfill the founders intent are The People, which is no doubt why the founders mentioned them specifically in the amendment.

[Pullo]

173. The OPERATIVE CLAUSE is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

and I'm very well-regulated, thank you very much!

[jody]

13. Read SCOTUS decision D.C. v. Heller that acknowledges a pre-existing individual right. n/t

[JonLP24]

15. The attorney general says he has no interest in overturning that

What exactly are you worried about?

[jody]

19. "overturning that" in reply to my post re D.C. v. Heller? What is your point? n/t

[JonLP24]

23. You start the thread expressing some fear over the AWB

Then you refer to the Heller v DC decision. Not sure what's in it but gun owners should feel pretty 'safe' knowing that the attorney general has no desire to overturn the decision. I have no idea what is going on as far as gun control but I don't see anything being done as far as the scary looking weapons ban.

[patriotvoice]

76. The syntax and semantics argument is well debunked,

based on the historical context and connotation. The most compact and accessible anthology of historical and modern perspective may be found in "The Second Amendment Primer".
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Authorities-Constitutional/dp/B0006QSTH4

To your specific argument, in George Washington's time the "militia" wasn't off fighting wars. That was the under the Army and the Secretary of War. The militia were all able-bodied men, capable of training ('regulating') and bearing arms.

On edit:
Typo.

[slackmaster]

102. You don't seem to understand the difference between a militia and a standing army

That's sad.

[beevul]

137. Someone needs to read RI's free press clause.

Compare the free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.” That language — not unlike the Second Amendment’s — of course does not mean that the right to publish one’s sentiments protects only the press. It protects “any person,” and one reason among others that it does so is that a free press is essential to a free society.

Its been amended over time, but the meaning is still the same.

Section 20. Freedom of press. -- The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defense to the person charged.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/RiConstitution/C01.html


By the way you read language, only the press may publish anything at all.

[rl6214]

142. Read the DC vs Heller decision

then come back and try to include yourself in the conversation.

[gorfle]

154. You must have missed Heller.

If you are a well organized militia then you should be in Iraq or Afghanistan.

First of all, you must have missed the recent Heller Supreme Court decision. They stated that the second amendment conveys and individual right to keep and bear arms irrespective of membership in any organization, such as a militia.

Second of all, the militias of our founders day, that is, military bodies that eliminate or counter federal military force, no longer exist, and have not since the militias were federalized in 1903.

[raimius]

179. You are forgetting the "unorganized militia"

The National Guard is only one component of the militia

[rl6214]

141. And why is it unhealthy

And who are you to say he is obsessed? What do you actually know about him?

[rhett o rick]

159. We are not talking about rights here. We regulate all rights. We are not talking about

outlawing the right to own all guns. We are talking about where the line should be drawn. There is already a line. It is not legal to own tanks or rocket launchers and in most states, fully automatic weapons. Some of us would like to see the line drawn a little more restrictive, like in every other modern country. Assault-like weapons are not needed for hunting purposes or even for defending our homes.

[inkool]

162. What is an Assult like weapon?

What does hunting have to do with the second amendment?

In point of fact you can own a tank.

[rhett o rick]

175. The second amendement doesn't say you can own automatic weapons. nm

[inkool]

176. I am well aware of that...

and it has little to do with the question I asked. What is an assault like weapon?

[jody]

171. Sorry, we are talking about rights here. Any law that bans a class of arms infringes upon RKBA.

That's the law of the land as SCOTUS said in D.C. v. Heller.

You say "Assault-like weapons are not needed for hunting purposes or even for defending our homes" but in fact semiautomatic firearms are popular arms for self-defense and sports.

Can you tell which of the following are misnamed "assault weapons"?

[tucsonlib]

146. Might As Well Save Your Breath, tridim My Friend

You've hit the nail on the head, so prepare for the inevitable flaming. Here's the sad truth - While claiming to care about all of our Constitutional Rights, it is the RKBA that trumps all the others in their eyes. I'm pretty certain the reasoning goes something like this: "If the government should ever succeed in grabbing all our guns, then there would be nothing to deter them from taking away the rest of our freedoms." So, when Bush basically came right out and declared: "Here's the deal - Your rights to free speech and assembly; your freedom from illegal search and seizure; your right to a fair trial; the laws banning cruel and unusual punishment; in short, any so-called "civil rights" you thought you had are no longer in effect. But hey, you can keep your guns!" - Those fearless defenders of the 2A apparently missed the irony of the situation and figured it was a pretty fair arrangement. Their silence spoke volumes: "As long as I can keep my guns, then at least I know I'm free!"
And while they're quick to criticize "gun-grabbers" (often justifiably), for their ignorance or hypocrisy, they are incapable of recognizing or admitting to any similar flaws on their side of the argument. Examples? Where to begin...

How about the very notion that one's liberty and freedom is somehow dependent on the availability of certain manufactured, inanimate pieces of metal?

Then we have this very OP - wherein the poster decries "the lie that the Democratic Party is the party of gun-grabbers." Who does he think is responsible for perpetuating this lie? (Besides the fear-mongers on the extreme right) Just look at the topics posted in this forum. Most are little more than conspiracy theories about the evil "gun-grabbers" in Washington who are coming to take yer guns away.

And finally, the speedy deletion of this comment will provide the ultimate proof that the extreme fringe element who dominate this forum will not or can not engage in honest debate or consider the possible validity of opposing viewpoints.

[rl6214]

148. Just for the record

George Bush said he would sign any AWB that got to his desk. So you can add that civil right to your list of civil rights you said he was taking/would take away.

Thank God no bill ever got to his desk.

[gorfle]

163. Yeah, but it was bullshit as usual.

Bush knew he could make such a statement to make himself smell like roses because he knew no such bill would make it to his desk. It meant nothing to say it.

[jody]

151. Please state a particular aspect of RKBA you wish to debate and I'll give it a try. As for other

civil rights, you have no idea how many LTTE I've written on other rights nor how many decades I've worked for other rights nor how much money I've donated.

Of course because this is the Internet, you'll never those things and I'll never know whether you want to discuss RKBA by presenting facts or whether you will simply repeat unsupported assertions coupled with ad hominem attacks.

OK, what aspect of RKBA do you want to discuss?

[gorfle]

161. Tucsonlib hits the nail on the head.

No doubt we disagree on the right to keep and bear arms, but, as an ex-Republican, I can tell you you are exactly right, and not just on guns.

So, when Bush basically came right out and declared: "Here's the deal - Your rights to free speech and assembly; your freedom from illegal search and seizure; your right to a fair trial; the laws banning cruel and unusual punishment; in short, any so-called "civil rights" you thought you had are no longer in effect. But hey, you can keep your guns!" - Those fearless defenders of the 2A apparently missed the irony of the situation and figured it was a pretty fair arrangement. Their silence spoke volumes: "As long as I can keep my guns, then at least I know I'm free!"

You are EXACTLY RIGHT, and this applies not just to guns.

Here is what has happened.

It used to be that a politician who trusted you with guns could also be counted on to behave in other moral ways. A man who believes in the right to keep and bear arms generally believes that maintaining one's freedom and safety is first and foremost a personal responsibility, not a governmental responsibility. They also believe that an armed citizen is a free man and has the ultimate recourse to tyranny if necessary. Thus, it used to be that a politician's stance on firearms was an excellent litmus test for how he felt about liberty in general.

Now, however, just as you note, too many politicians are being "pro gun" on one hand, while the other hand simultaneously erodes many other civil rights and pushes us closer to tyranny than even the mere confiscation of firearms would have.

We have the EXACT SAME situation with religion. There may have been a time when politicians professed a belief in god and actually acted on those beliefs. But I'm quite certain that the Republicans talk a great game about "Family Values" but then go right back to wide stances and whatever other behavior they would otherwise publicly condemn.

In short, you are exactly right - the politicians of the Republican party MOST DEFINITELY ARE HYPOCRITES and are using the firearm issue as a WEDGE and a DISTRACTION.

Too many voters are simply not very bright and are single-issue voters. They figure if a man holds a gun in one hand and a bible in the other while saluting a flag that he's a fine politician. Just look at the backlash against the Dixie Chicks. This is the kind of American we are talking about. These are the people who think "God, Guns, and Guts" are the metrics to look for in a politician, and what they are failing to see is that the politicians are MERELY PUTTING ON A SHOW TO LOOK LIKE THEY SUPPORT GOD, GUNS AND GUTS, all the while undermining those principles to serve their own ends.

BUT PEOPLE ARE SEEING THE LIGHT.

After voting Republican my whole life, I have voted Democratic since the 2006 elections. I know lots of former Republicans who are the same way, including my wife, and my mother.

We see the corporate welfare. We see the wars set up by design to be open-ended and thus a huge power grab and profiteering action. We see the erosion of civil liberties set forth by suspension of habeus corpus, torture, and pervasive domestic surveillance.

WE SEE.

Unfortunately, a lot of less educated people don't see, and don't want to see. They want a simple, "God, Guns, Guts" situation, and their politicians give it to them.

But more and more people are seeing.

[umccoyw]

152. this is the gun forum what do you expect to be discussed here. n/t

[tridim]

3. Delete

[walldude]

6. So now

Arlen (This bill is unconstitutional but I'm voting for it anyway) Specter is the new litmus test for Democrats position on gun control? Good luck with that.

[jody]

7. "litmus test", you are really kidding but it is one more Dem vote to protect the civil right

enumerated in the Second Amendment.

[walldude]

31. The second amendment says nothing about assault weapons as

they didn't exist when it was written. If they had then I'm sure the authors of the constitution would have included some limits on the type of firearms that are allowed to be held by the public. After all you aren't allowed to have a tank, or a nuke, so we know there is a line, we just have to establish how far it goes.

[jody]

34. Do you know what an "assault weapon" is? n/t

[walldude]

43. As written in the bill or as in your mind?

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

I'm all for gun ownership. But there are limits. These are what is listed in the ban.

[JonLP24]

51. That is one of my issues the ban

It doesn't describe velocity of the bullet or any of that. Alot of weapons fire the same that are not listed on the AWB because they don't have scary looking attachments such as bayonet hooks. (I can understand the grenade launcher attachment)

[jody]

53. Or as defined in HR 1022 that died in the last congress that would have given the attorney general

unilateral authority to effectively ban essentially all semiautomatic firearms including such popular ones as the Colt Model 1911 pistol and Remington Model 1100 shotgun.

Can you tell which of the following are misnamed "assault weapons"?

[walldude]

109. No I can't. I've managed to live 45 years without needing or owning a gun

And your failed attempt to make me look foolish because I don't give a fucking rats ass about your stupid assault weapons was pathetic. You know what? If this is your big priority then you and your guns deserve each other. Me, I have bigger things to worry about than folding stocks, scopes, and bullet velocities.

Have a nice day, oh and try not to shot yourself in the foot.

[jody]

112. Have a nice day and remember, self-defense is a personal responsibility because gov. is not

obligated to protect you.

[Hoopla Phil]

124. Damn Jody! You're knocken down fast on this post! GREAT JOB!

I wish I was half as articulate as you and had 1/10 the written recources you have at your disposal.

[jody]

134. Thanks!

:hi:

[gorfle]

165. That's fine...

No I can't. I've managed to live 45 years without needing or owning a gun And your failed attempt to make me look foolish because I don't give a fucking rats ass about your stupid assault weapons was pathetic. You know what? If this is your big priority then you and your guns deserve each other.

Would you heap such scorn on someone who was focused solely on first amendment issues? Or voting rights? We all have our issues that are important to us.

Me, I have bigger things to worry about than folding stocks, scopes, and bullet velocities.

That's fine, and you are entitled to live your life as you wish, within the law.

Just please don't be one of those people voting for legislation that impacts the way I wish to live my life without being educated about what you're voting on.

[JonLP24]

35. Most of the modern guns didn't exist back in those days

Hell I don't think anyone owns a gun (other then as antiques as decorations) from that era. I know what you mean though.

[Hoopla Phil]

125. Please read the last paragraph in post 38 for clarification.

Just like modern printing presses or the internet did not exist then they are still protected under the 1A.

[Iktomiwicasa]

136. Actually, I do

own such firearms. Brown Bess musket, a couple Jaegers, a couple of Pennsylvania rifles. They are functional and I actually hunt with them. I also own a fair stable of modern firearms. The point is, WRT to the type of arms, is that the Second Amendment called for ordinary citizens to be armed with the standard small arm of the day, so as to be an effective counter to overreaching Federal power.

[Enthusiast]

90. Yeah, the founding fathers would have

restricted gun ownership to single shot muzzle loaders. :sarcasm:

[walldude]

110. You know what you are right. Remove all limits.

let the guy next door own a tank. The guy across the street a .50 cal mounted to his jeep and the crazy professor down the street can have a nuke. NO RESTRICTIONS ON WEAPONS. Brilliant reasoning.

[yay]

123. Woo, nice straw man dude. N/T

[Hoopla Phil]

127. I believe the O.P. is regarding the supposed AWB. Nice try though.

[gorfle]

166. On Restrictions on weapons.

You know what you are right. Remove all limits. let the guy next door own a tank. The guy across the street a .50 cal mounted to his jeep and the crazy professor down the street can have a nuke. NO RESTRICTIONS ON WEAPONS. Brilliant reasoning.

No one has proposed no restrictions on weapons. Nor has anyone proposed allowing private citizens to own crew-served weapons or weapons of mass destruction.

You are making a straw man.

We are talking about simple semi-automatic weaponry and weapon technology that is over 100 years old.

[Hoopla Phil]

126. And quill and parchment under the 1A. Only a "real" newspaper could

have a press. Of course that would be limited to the Gutenberg at that.

[rl6214]

145. So now we're going to have the

Tank and nuke arguement? If you would listen to yourself you might see how stupid that sounds.

[DrCory]

149. Yet Another Mentalist...

"If they had then I'm sure the authors of the constitution would have included some limits on the type of firearms that are allowed to be held by the public."

Reading the minds of dead people are 'ya?

Oh, and by the way, you would be surprised to know how many tanks are in private hands.

[gorfle]

164. They surely did.

The second amendment says nothing about assault weapons as they didn't exist when it was written.

The founders' intent in the second amendment is clear from contemporary writings. They wanted the citizenry to be armed with weapons similar to the federal army so that they could either eliminate the need for a standing federal army or be able to counter its force.

This would mean arming the citizenry with the standard infantry arms of the day. In their day, that arm was a musket. Today, that arm is the assault rifle. The musket was the assault rifle of their day.

If they had then I'm sure the authors of the constitution would have included some limits on the type of firearms that are allowed to be held by the public. After all you aren't allowed to have a tank, or a nuke, so we know there is a line, we just have to establish how far it goes.

The founders were quite specific in choosing the word "arms" rather than trying to specify specific kinds of arms because they knew arms technology would change. The intent, however, was for the citizens to have similar arms as would be appropriate for an infantry soldier. This does not include crew-served weapons such as cannons, tanks or nukes.

[aikoaiko]

64. Specter is not alone in in the Democratic party with this stance.

[unpossibles]

8. Specter also says "no" to a lot of other stuff

including equal rights for marriage. I guess the 14th is not as important as the 2nd though.

[jody]

9. The 9th circuit held the 2nd was incorporated in the 14th and SCOTUS will probably agree. What is

your point about the 14th?

[-..__...]

71. "I guess the 14th is not as important as the 2nd though.".

I guess it all depends on your perspective, interests and point of view.

At least the 2nd is a pre-existing right and the founding fathers thought it important enough that it was included in the Bill of Rights.

On the flip side, we have the Feinsteins, Schumers, McCarthys, Kuciniches, etc (as well as a number of state legislatures), whom have nothing but contempt for the 2nd amendment.

Lets see what kind of tune they'll be singing once the inevitable incorporation of the 2nd amendment occurs.

[moondust]

11. Are you in lust with the barrel of an AK47 or something?

[jody]

17. Your ad hominem attack is a useless defense against facts. n/t

[moondust]

36. The facts are

that if the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to "everybody" then it would not include the term "militia" at all. "Militia" would obviously be a subset of "everybody," as would the terms "police force" and "constabulary"--neither of which is mentioned. There is a very good reason the term "militia" is there and some very obvious reasons why the right-wing majority SCOTUS chose to ignore it.

[jody]

45. Please read the dissents by Stevens and Breyer in Heller. n/t

[TheWraith]

49. Uh, you're going against hundreds of years of legal precedent there.

For starters, the reference to militia has always been understood as explaining why the right needs to be protected, NOT limiting the application of the right. So your premise is false. Second, in legal terms, "militia" means all able-bodied males age 17-45 under federal law, and expands in definition according to some state laws. (For instance in Washington state the "militia" is defined as ALL persons 18 and over.)

[X_Digger]

52. Try this one on for size..

"Pizza being necessary for late night study sessions, the right of the people to keep and bear tomatoes, shall not be infringed."

Are tomatoes only to be used for pizzas? Are tomatoes only for use by the states?

[moondust]

61. That's it exactly.

The first clause is entirely unnecessary because the second clause subsumes it. Why bother to include it at all? Why not say "Spaghetti is good so the right of the people..." or anything else related to tomatoes?

If the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to "everybody" the language would be altogether different and would not include the term "militia."

[X_Digger]

63. That's not an uncommon construct from the time period..

Rhode Island's 1842 constitution:

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . ."

The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution:

"In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . ."

The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution:

"The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever."

[moondust]

82. The syntactical pattern

in those examples is roughly: "For this reason, this." Rearrange the syntax and you get: "This, 'because of' this." No difference.

Rearrange the 2nd Amendment accordingly and you get, roughly: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "because" a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State."

I'd still have to say that if it was meant to apply to "everybody for whatever use" the "militia clause" would not have been necessary and would not have been included.

In addition, I don't think the signers would have seriously considered granting unlimited "arms" rights to every drunken sailor stumbling out of the tavern on Saturday night, which is essentially the NRA/SCOTUS-5 "individual right" interpretation, but that's another angle for another time...

[X_Digger]

96. Ehn.. sorta..

I'm sure they could have simplified it, even for readers of their time.

From the perspective that the bill of rights is not a 'grant' of rights to us, it is a restriction on congress to keep them from abridging those rights, it would seem to me that the militia clause is not limiting. In essence, it's a directive to congress- "Hey Congress! Because standing armies are bad and militias are good, don't mess with arms." It doesn't mean that militias are the only reason to protect citizen use of arms, just that this one is the most important. _A_ justification, not necessarily the only one.

In reading historical writing of the time concerning self-defense, it seems a foregone conclusion. "Indian" attacks on one side, British and French spies on the other, wild animal attacks in the middle, pirates on the seas, no constabulary in most areas- seems logical to me that they would expect a smart person to go armed. Heck, Hancock had is own warships with cannons (as did many merchant companies.)

[beevul]

140. Another poster that needs to read Rhode Islands free press clause.

Compare the free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.” That language — not unlike the Second Amendment’s — of course does not mean that the right to publish one’s sentiments protects only the press. It protects “any person,” and one reason among others that it does so is that a free press is essential to a free society.

Its been amended over time, but the meaning is still the same.

Section 20. Freedom of press. -- The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defense to the person charged.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/RiConstitution/C01.html


By your reading of the text original text, only members of the press canpublish...anything at all.


Which of course is preposterous.

[gorfle]

167. One problem.

One problem.

Even if the second amendment applied only to militias (which the Supreme Court has ruled is not the case), what about the fact that the militias our founders intended to exist as a counter to federal military power have not existed since 1903 when they were federalized by the Dick Act?

How do you preserve the intent of the second amendment if there are no longer any militias?

[Occam Bandage]

16. I'm fine with Obama simply never mentioning the AWB again. nt

[Political Heretic]

20. Have you ever made one post on any subject other than guns?

[jody]

22. Yes. n/t

[Political Heretic]

28. OMG where? I need to see this!

[jody]

29. If you don't know how to search, then you have a personal problem. n/t

[Political Heretic]

33. So far my search has come up with nothing but guns....

Some special forum where you make all these secret non-gun posts?

[jody]

42. Apparently you have a personal problem. n/t

[DireStrike]

24. He voted against waiting periods?

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

117. We had waiting periods for five years after the Brady Act was passed

During those five years, the National Instant Check System (NICS) was developed. That allows gun dealers to determine, usually within a few minutes, whether or not someone is prohibited from buyng a firearm.

The waiting period sunsetted when NICS was ready for use. There is no point in making someone who is qualified to buy a gun wait some arbitrary amount of time to exercise that right.

[backscatter712]

25. Gun control's not gonna happen this year.

There's lots of pro-Second-Amendment Democrats in Congress, and even the anti-gun Democrats are acutely aware that the gun issue has become a third-rail issue.

You'll get the occasional gun control bill introduced in Congress, but those bills will quickly die in committee.

[jody]

27. Agree but Obama still maintains his support for renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. n/t

[ima_sinnic]

50. good. (n/t)

[Hoopla Phil]

130. Bad. (n/t)

[Lorien]

66. Thank goodness. Glad to have someone with sense on this issue

in charge.

[MercutioATC]

147. Can you articulate what the difference is between an "assault weapon" and a hunting rifle?

Most people (I'm not necessarily saying YOU) who think the AWB is good legislation don't know anything about guns.

[derby378]

26. Here's a current version of "the list"

Baucus (MT), Begich (AK), Casey (PA), Feingold (WI), Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Reid (NV), Specter (PA), Tester (MT), Webb (VA)

These are the current Senate Democrats who will likely oppose any new semi-auto ban. Gillibrand (NY) is another possible opponent, but she's been under a lot of pressure from Schumer and gun-control advocates, and she's a current cosponsor of S 843 (Lautenberg's gun show bill).

[jody]

30. Thanks. n/t

[SidDithers]

41. Because, up until today, Specter was a Republican...

and Obama is a Democrat.

Sid

[jody]

54. From #26 Baucus (MT), Begich (AK), Casey (PA), Feingold (WI), Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE),

Reid (NV), Specter (PA), Tester (MT), Webb (VA)

[spanone]

56. because I believe that President Obama is like me and would like to reinstitute the ban

[jody]

62. So you oppose the civil right exercised by 80+ million gun-owners, most of which were among the

130 million or so voters in the last election!

[Lorien]

65. Our founding fathers didn't own assault rifles

gun owners need to stop pissing themselves over this crap.

[jody]

69. The OP and thread is about "assault weapons", not "assault rifles" that have been tightly regulated

since 1934 under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

[JonLP24]

72. They didn't own handguns either

Different era I know. I wonder what they would say today. :shrug:

[X_Digger]

75. Actually..

..they did (if you include flintlock pistols.)

[JonLP24]

78. You're right

I was thinking of soldiers from the era all in formation firing a single round simultanously.

[X_Digger]

79. Still, interesting question..

They thought concealed carry meant you were up to no good. They wore their swords and pistols on their hips.

[JonLP24]

87. LOL, I can see why they thought that

Also I'm sure they probaly would've rather fought the revolution with semi-automatic weapons which dispels a casing and loads another round into position to fire with each pull of the trigger. To me that seems to be the only difference between "assualt" weapons and regular weapons is it basically loads a round into the chamber by itself as well as other scary looking attachments. Anyways if you want my opinion I kind of it both ways. Control and regulation are necessary and until I get a clear definition of what the 2nd amendment is(seems like there are thousands of different opinions on what it means and can't find anything without bias on what it means) I support the individual's right to own a gun.

[X_Digger]

106. "self-loading" vs "manual-loading"

It gets really confusing to a 'gunny' when congress starts making definitions about weapons whose only difference is mostly cosmetic.

All "assault weapons" are semi-automatic aka self-loading (per the 94 fed bill). But not all self-loading guns are considered "assault weapons". Many hunting rifles (new and old) are self-loading; the technology isn't new or rare. Nor are they fully-automatic (squeeze the trigger and dump bullets until you release). Nor are the calibers of most of them particularly strong compared to an average hunting rifle. Hence the frustration :)

[slackmaster]

113. Yes they did own handguns

Flintlock pistols had already been around for a long time.

[JonLP24]

116. I already admitted I was wrong

I even described one popped up in my mind when I was thinking of the era(revolutionary war) while forgeting about 'duels'.

[slackmaster]

119. Cool, I hadn't seen your other post

I just bought a flintlock pistol BTW. My first one.

[JonLP24]

121. You fired it yet?

The only handgun I fired was a M9 military pistol. I'm curious on how it works.

[slackmaster]

128. I haven't received it yet - It's somewhere between Memphis and San Diego

On a UPS truck, or maybe a train. It's supposed to show up Thursday. I'm taking the day off work so I can be there to sign for it (otherwise UPS will leave a terse sticky note and run away cruelly laughing at my misery).

[Irreverend IX]

94. Why do you think the ban is a good idea?

It restricts firearms that are almost never used in crime and which have less power and range than a hunting rifle. Less than 3% of yearly murders are committed with any kind of rifle and so-called "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles. More people are killed with fists and feet each year than with rifles.

And the founding fathers didn't have Internet access either. Should all electronic speech be licensed by the government?

[slackmaster]

129. The firearms they did own as personal weapons were the same as those used by soldiers at war

We're not even demanding that much.

[Hoopla Phil]

131. IIRC our militia had superior weapons than the redcoats.

They used rifled barrels while the redcoats still had short range muskets. I'd say that our founding fathers actually had the most cutting edge assault weapons of their day.

[Iktomiwicasa]

138. Actually...

...smoothbore muskets were the most common longarm of the Continental Army. Quite a bit quicker to load than a rifle with a patched round ball. The British also had companies of specially equipped riflemen, though they didn't use them to best effect. Overall, the Americans had more rifles, than the the British, but both sides had more muskets than rifles.

[gorfle]

168. Yes they did.

Our founding fathers didn't own assault rifles

Our founders owned the same personal weaponry that soldiers owned. Which is exactly what assault weapons are today, except civilian versions only fire semi-automatically. Muskets were the assault rifles of their day.

[friendly_iconoclast]

172. They didn't have blogs, word processing software, or podcasts either

Some *did*, however, own cannon.

What's your point besides a cheap dig at gun owners?

[FudaFuda]

178. So, restrict the 1st Am. to the printing press?

Let's censor all forms of media and entertainment that aren't printed on hand-distributed leaflets. The founding fathers didn't have television or internet. They didn't have video, or porn, or radio.

[-..__...]

74. Well....

if we had to get one, at least it was one with his head screwed on right (at least with this issue).

[rollingrock]

86. Isn't Specter a Repuke?

why are you endorsing the opinion of a Republican as if he were some kind of role model we should all be trying to emulate?

:puke:

[jody]

95. "Isn't Specter a Repuke?" You are too funny for words, have a nice day and don't bother to read

headlines or watch TV. :hi:

[walnutpie]

100. Because it is the opinion...

...rather than the opinion holder that matters.

In this instance, Specter holds the correct opinion.

[slackmaster]

104. I guess you haven't heard the news about Specter

He changed parties. He's a Democrat now.

[Enthusiast]

93. Listen DUers,

Assault weapons have the same rate of fire that hunting weapons do. Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. The assault weapons ban is a lose lose issue for Democrats. There is nothing practical to be gained from it. It won't save a single life.

[JonLP24]

98. Thank you

That was a point I tried to explain upthread. The AWB doesn't explain velocity but only scary looking attachments such as bayonet hooks.

[jody]

105. JonLP24 you and Enthusiast tried but often your/our message never gets to those DUers who remain

ignorant about the AWB.

Our job is handicapped because too often threads that mention "gun" are immediately banished to the "gungeon" and DUers are discouraged from participating in discussions about one of our civil rights.

As a result, DUers post in this thread statements that show they don't know an "assault weapon" is not an "assault rifle".

Ignorance may be bliss but when it becomes a blister it needs treatment and education is the solution.

:hi:

[JonLP24]

108. Thanks for showing me the definition of arms

I was always under the impression arms meant instruments of war. I also learned alot in this thread, even how they wrote sentences back in the era. Learned alot today. :hi:

[rhett o rick]

157. Something I never understood. Why do hunting rifles need to be semi-automatic?

A good marksman needs only a single shot. But those equipped with semi-autos seem to use the spray method instead of taking the time to aim. Wouldn't it be more sporting to use bolt actions or even single shot rifles. Just curious.

[jody]

158. How many hunters have you personally seen use the "spray method"? n/t

[rhett o rick]

160. Why do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? nm

[jody]

170. AGAIN, How many hunters have you personally seen use the "spray method"? n/t

[rhett o rick]

174. Let's face it Jody, it isn't about hunting is it? nm

[jody]

177. RKBA is about self-defense so why in a thread about RKBA did you post # 157 about hunting? n/t

[Raskolnik]

169. Because they work really well, that's why.

In a perfect world, every hunter would need only a single shot, but that's often not how it works.

[Dr Fate]

99. We agree that it is a losing issue for DEMS.

I'm not sure that Obama needs to follow any lead by Spector though.

I tend to agree with the poster up above who suggested that Obama should steeer clear of the issue and let others handle it.

[slackmaster]

111. Why can't these STUPID, LAZY reporters get it right?

"Automatic" weapons my ass.

[jody]

114. They are just as ignorant as many DUers who are afraid to visit DU's Guns forum for an education. nt

[slackmaster]

120. Looks like anyone who wants to read this thread has to go to the Guns forum now...

:rofl:

[jody]

135. The best way to keep DUers ignorant of 2nd Amendment facts is to quasi censor discussion by moving

the topic to the Guns forum and allowing the mis-truth that threads in the "gungeon" are not respectable discussions for liberal, progressive Democrats.

If Obama had educated himself by participating in DU Guns forum discussions, he would not be offending 80+ million gun voters who were a key bloc among the 130+ million voters in the last election.

[Hippo_Tron]

115. Because the smartest thing to do is to not even touch the issue

He can prevent the NRA from having a lot of ammunition against the Dems by never seriously pushing for the AWB and he can keep the pro gun control base by remaining supportive of it with his words. It's a win-win for Obama.

[X_Digger]

122. Politically smart..

.. still leaves room for others to tar him with an anti-gun brush. I'd love to get a clearer stance from him on this issue, one way or the other.

[goforit]

118. This has to go through Congress first. THE PEOPLE HAVE TO PUSH IT FIRST.

[jody]

139. My SINCERE THANKS to all pro-RKBA Dems who contributed to this thread. Even though it didn't survive

long enough in the GD forum to educate all DUers who can't tell an "assault weapon" from an "assault rifle", IMO we pro-RKBA Dems did a magnificent job of using facts against unsupported assertions and the usual ad hominem attacks from those who oppose the civil right protected by the Second Amendment -- the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for defense of self.

:toast: :pals: to DU's pro-RKBA patriots.