Reply #88: When a politician says "I want to ban assault weapons", what does that mean?

[krispos42]

You have to look at that particular politician's bill to figure out whats going on. New York's AWB is identical to the now-expired federal one, but it's different from California's stricter definition, which is different from the very strict proposed HR1022 definition.


And states can of course pass more restrictive laws, providing they don't run afoul of the Constitution.

Gun rights groups, such as the NRA, spent $25 million dollars supporting Bush, even though Bush said he supported the AWB when he ran for re-election.
That's right! - Bush supported the AWB and said so, as late as July of 2004.

If I recall, he said he would sign an extension (or permenant passage, I forget which) of the AWB if it came to his desk. However the AWB expired on my son's day of birth, Sept. 14 2004, which was six or seven weeks prior to the election and any possible change of Congress. Bush knew that the GOP-controlled Congress would never let that bill get to his desk in the first place.

I remember reading the NRA magazine of that time (my former in-laws got them from somebody that was a member) and I was amused by their twisted logic of supporting Bush. :rofl: They were extolling about how clever Bush was, or some shit. My eyes almost rolled out of my skull at that one!

But you can always move to a state that has less restrictions on guns, this is a big country.

True. However, I shouldn't have to move across the country in order for my Constitutional rights to be recognized and protected. Such reasoning fails for same-sex marriage or abortions, for example.

I read what the NRA said about Kerry in 2004, and I know what they said about Obama this year.

Gross, isn't it? And what the NRA was screaming about in 2006, spreading fear about Democrats if we got control of Congress...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/krispos42/23

Damn, I wish we had done something to really strike fear in the Republicans. You know, like IMPEACHMENT!!! God, they were absolutely terrified in 2006 when we won, and we squadered it on day one with "impeachement's off the table". Fuck.

You can complain about the laws in California, or New York, or New Jersey, but those are the 3 most populated states in America, and the people that live in those states have passed laws concerning guns that they wanted to be passed.
Or else those laws would have been overturned by now.
And that's all there is to it.

I have trouble buying that. For example the Patiot Act is still on the books, marijuania is still illegal, the FISA bill with telecom immunity was still passed, etc. And we're still occupying Iraq.

The basic fact is that a large percentage of voters do not know enough about guns to intelligently have an opinion on the issue, yet they are often times the most vehenement on the subject. This is especially true with so-called "assault weapons", which many people that are against them can't intellegently define them. And when "gun control" is equated to "crime control", what they are saying and voting for is really crime control

Nowadays, all laws are subject to the same kind of advertising campaign and media management that gets people to buy such bullshit concepts as Compassionate Conservatism, the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, Drilling in ANWR Will Lower Your Gas Prices, John Kerry Isn't a War Hero but George W. Bush is, Valerie Plame Was Just a Secretary, and Warrantless Wiretapping Is Only Used to Spy On Terrorists.

Reading "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" gives a lot of insight into modern message-control methods.