Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cheney at NRA Meeting Talked about Anything but Assault Weapons Ban

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:20 AM
Original message
Cheney at NRA Meeting Talked about Anything but Assault Weapons Ban
Cheney at NRA Meeting Talked Taxes, Judges, Anything but Assault Weapons Ban Set to Expire

PITTSBURGH, April 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY, AT NRA MEETING, TALKED TAXES, JUDGES, ANYTHING BUT THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN SET TO EXPIRE

When will the silence end? The Bush Administration's follow-through on the campaign pledge to renew this critical law has been pathetically nonexistent.

President Bush's campaign pledge to renew the landmark assault weapons ban that is scheduled to expire September 13 was not in the script for his Vice President, Dick Cheney, when Cheney gave the keynote address at the NRA convention about 30 minutes ago.

"The lack of straight talk on this issue by this Administration should be embarrassing to every American/whether they are supporters of reasonable gun violence prevention laws or the most die-hard NRA members," said Michael Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March.

"Last week, President Bush said 'when I say something, I mean it.' Tonight, both sides of the gun violence prevention debate in America should ask the President what he means when it comes to the assault weapons ban."

President Bush, as a candidate, said he supported the 1994 ban. It expires in less than five months.

Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 301-537-0726

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=108-04...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's not a critical law.
Stop fooling yourself into thinking that the AWB is anything but a ban on "scary looking" guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Stop fooling yourself
Brady Bill Text:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybi...


(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and

`
(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppresser, forward hand grip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned;

(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
___________________________________

Since the implementation of the Brady Law in 1994, almost a quarter-million prohibited purchasers have been stopped from buying handguns in gun stores. Additionally, a 1997 study by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence demonstrated that states that began conducting background checks on handgun purchasers when the Brady Act was implemented in 1994 are as much as 86% less likely to be sources of guns used in crimes in other states than they were prior to when the checks were performed. Despite a 1997 Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal mandate for background checks based on Tenth Amendment limits on federal power to enforce commands to state and local officials, more than 95% of the nations law enforcement officers continue to do background checks on a voluntary basis.

"Police support the original Brady provisions because they know that waiting periods save lives," said Sarah Brady, Handgun Control, Inc. chair. "The Justice Department has done its job, but the federal database will not contain many of the records that police would use to disqualify firearms purchasers. The police need time to provide that information to gun dealers and federal authorities, and to discourage ordinary people who want a gun immediately for a crime of passion or suicide."

The Brady Law, first introduced in 1987, took seven years to pass Congress and garner White House support. The sunset provisions eliminating the waiting period after five years in favor of Instant Check were contained in a successful amendment sponsored by the National Rifle Association. The amendments passage allowed the NRA to claim a victory to its membership and to the public despite its long fight against the Brady Bill and despite the amendments provision that will extend background checks to long guns on November 30.

Every national public opinion poll since the early 90s has demonstrated overwhelming support from the American public, including gunowners, for both background checks and waiting periods.

http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/071598c.htm

_____________________________________

CNN.com - Government figures show gun crimes down, Brady bill successful - June 5, 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/05/brady... /

The Justice Department said Sunday that it is gaining ground in the fight against crime and gun violence.


The department released two reports to back up its claim: One that showed the number of violent crimes committed with guns is 35 percent lower now than in 1992; and another that said background checks prevented more than half a million people with criminal records from legally buying a gun between 1994 and 1999.

"Despite our success, we must not become complacent," said a statement released Sunday night by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder. "There are still 89 Americans, including 12 young people, dying every day from gunshot wounds."

The report on the success of the background checks indicated that since their inception in February of 1994, approximately 536,000 of the more than 22.2 million people who applied to purchase a firearm were rejected based on federal, state or local laws.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Maybe you should stop fooling yourself.
How do you make a rifle with a detachable magazine, pistol grip, bayonet lug, and flash suppressor post ban legal? You take off the flash suppressor and bayonet lug. How do you make one of the weapons banned by name legal? You take off enough of the listed features to make it legal and you change its name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. We should toughen the law
I don't have any need or desire for any weapon. I see little need or use for private ownership of guns outside of hunting and I deplore the 'sport' of killing animals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I guess it's a good thing for the rest of us
that we aren't subject to your wants and needs. The rest of us do see a need and a use for the private ownership of guns and some of them have nothing to do with hunting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Don't ever say "the rest of us".
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 03:43 PM by Buzzz
Your presumptuousness embarrasses everyone. You must learn to speak for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. How can I speak for myself when you seem to want
to speak for me?

There are plenty of people who agree with me and we're all quite happy that some random person on a message board isn't picked to determine who gets to do what and own what based on the wants and needs of that person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redneck Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
50. He has lots of company. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Frankly you aren't subject to my wants and needs on this subject if you
securely lock your weapon. Thank you (presumptively) for your responsible attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I'm not a gun owner. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I am therefore perplexed by your support of those who have guns
that are not for hunting.

No matter. I don't want handguns in the hands of private citizens. Can I impose that? Probably not. I'm not on a crusade against gun owners. I would, however, work towards handgun disarnament. I think it is the responsibility of gun owners to prove that their weapons are not a threat to society. Trigger locks would be a good example of that assurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Because I support equal rights for everyone
and the right to bear arms is one of them. I don't compromise on rights. I think every federal gun law should be repealed. As far as I'm concerned you should be able to pick up the Sears Catalog and order yourself a machine gun, like you could before 1934.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. The right to bear arms should not infringe on the rights of others
to effect a safe community. I'm comforted that most Americans agree with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. The right to bear arms doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Ownership of arms doesn't affect others in any way. Misuse of arms may and we have laws that deal with that sort of thing.

"I'm comforted that most Americans agree with me."

Appeal to popularity. Assuming it's even true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. It does when gun owners sell guns to felons and minors
or otherwise enable that same misuse and proliferation with unsecured guns. Housing projects and communities should be able to ban these weapons with state laws or referendums in order to keep their communities safe. That's where popularity factors in. Guns are an invention, not a divine creation. The notion of a constitutional right to a gun, to the exclusion of any right of regulation is an arrogant disregard of the right of communities to decide what is best in terms of the safety of its citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. That's real funny
"Housing projects and communities should be able to ban these weapons with state laws or referendums in order to keep their communities safe."

That is working real well in Chicago and DC isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. The alternative to the effort is what?
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 04:50 PM by bigtree
I believe that the effort had the potential to make those communities safer. The escalation in proliferation is mostly from other states who refuse to impose the same ban.

You think it is funny that the effort is mostly unsuccessful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. What's really funny is when supporters of bans
try to push blame off on places that don't have bans. Guns are easy to build and plentiful. Even if the entire United States banned guns, the country would still be full of them. Who would the gun grabbers blame then? Probably Somalia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. I would then blame Somalia, yes.
We pursue the proliferation of dangerous drugs in much the same way. Just because we aren't 100% successful doesn't devalue the effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. A war on drugs supporter, eh?
I don't support that either. Not 100% successful? What % successful would you say you are? I would say 0%, since anyone who wants drugs can get them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. C'mon
We need to fight the war on drugs through treatment and education as well as through interdiction. We haven't been doing that. It doesn't follow that we should be deterred from interdiction efforts because drugs still proliferate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. No we don't.
"We need to fight the war on drugs through treatment and education as well as through interdiction. We haven't been doing that."

It's another one of those rights things. People have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies, even if it kills them.

"It doesn't follow that we should be deterred from interdiction efforts because drugs still proliferate."

Prohibition never works. Drugs, alcohol, guns. Make all the laws you want, fight the war as hard as you can, you will never win it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Sorry kids.
Nothing I can do to clean up the mess we made. I surrender. We can't win. ;(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. What mess you made?
I haven't made any mess.

"I surrender. We can't win."

Sounds good to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. If one is not part of a solution
then, in my view, one is part of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. My solution is cheap and easy.
I'm glad I'm not part of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Have you heard of Prohibition
Didn't work back then, not working now, and will never work. All it does is create a black market with the attendant crime and violence it takes for it to subsist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. Freedom, liberty, and equality for all
"I believe that the effort had the potential to make those communities safer."

The only thing those efforts have done is to ensure that only the criminal population is armed and able to run with free reign over an unarmed populace.

"The escalation in proliferation is mostly from other states who refuse to impose the same ban."

Hmm.. cocaine is prohibited everywhere in the United States, yet I bet you could get it within 10 minutes if you wanted. Strange how the black market works isn't? Much like the regular market, if there is demand, a supply will follow.

"You think it is funny that the effort is mostly unsuccessful?"

No, I think it's tragic and disgraceful that people will blindly follow a blatant campaign against inanimate objects based on lies and attempt to withhold the fundamental right to self defense from the weak and the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. I don't think that more guns in the hands of citizens is the answer
I don't think we should be deterred from anti-proliferation efforts just because some criminal enterprise has sucessfully resisted. I don't believe that we have made a enough of an effort in that regard. I would support a nationwide ban on handguns. I don't think we'll see it, but I would support it.

Self-defense for the weak and poor? Brother!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. If that isn't the answer, then neither is prohibition
"I don't think we should be deterred from anti-proliferation efforts just because some criminal enterprise has sucessfully resisted. I don't believe that we have made a enough of an effort in that regard. I would support a nationwide ban on handguns. I don't think we'll see it, but I would support it."

Your ban is already taking place in Chicago and DC. And we've seen how well it works there. Don't force the same fate on the rest of the country.

"Self-defense for the weak and poor? Brother!"

Gun control has long been known to be biased against the poor and minorities. What do you think all the mandatory fees do? They drive up the prices of firearms so as to make it more difficult for the poor to afford them. The rich and powerful have no need for personal ownership of firearms since they can afford personal armed bodyguards to protect them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. If the rest of the country would follow then we might see some success
Who do you think voted for the bans in D.C. and Chicago? I propose that it was those same 'weak and poor' that you would defend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Again, you forget the lesson of Prohibition
Actually, it is the legislatures who voted for those bans. The same ones who have personal, publicly paid bodyguards to follow them around. What other rights would you like to strip away by majority fiat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. The votes of a community are not akin to fiat.
I would not impose my individual view on a majority if I had that power. I would, however, seek to influence that community into voting my view. Legislation can go astray and prove wrong or destructive. There is little evidence that gun restrictions contribute to the increase in crime or violence. There is further little evidence that those restrictions caused communities to be less safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. There is definitely correlation between strict gun control and high crime
In the United States. Causation is something else that is beyond the scope of what we can discuss on the web. However, the same cannot be said of gun control and reduction in crime. There is neither correlation nor causation between the two. Even the CDC has released a report stating such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. I'd like to see the statistics
Sounds like an NRA myth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Do some research on Chicago and DC
The most strict gun control legislation coupled with the highest murder rates in the nation. It is a well known fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. That doesn't prove anything of what you claim
The higher rates have been attributed to proliferation across state borders. I live 20 min from D.C btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Round and round we go
Everyone blames the other guy huh? Since you live so close, let's take DC. Now they usually blame Virginia for their problems. They say they have all their crime is because guns flow freely from Virginia to DC. If that is the case then how come Virginia does not nearly have the same crime rate that DC has since it's gun laws are so lax?

The fact of the matter is, when criminals do not have to worry about potential victims being armed, they are more bold and commit more crime. You don't need a degree in psychology to realize this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. There is less of a concentration of disadvantaged in Va.
Big cities are all plagued with violence. There are less people in Va.'s cities than D.C.'s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Thank you
There are far more significant factors affecting crime and violence than gun availability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Simple ownership doesn't infringe anyone's rights.
There are laws against robbing and murdering people because those violate the rights of life and property of others.

"Housing projects and communities should be able to ban these weapons with state laws or referendums in order to keep their communities safe. That's where popularity factors in."

Are there any other rights you'd like to put up for a public vote?

"Guns are an invention, not a divine creation. The notion of a constitutional right to a gun, to the exclusion of any right of regulation is an arrogant disregard of the right of communities to decide what is best in terms of the safety of its citizens."

Guns are the most effective means for an individual to defend his rights to life, liberty, and property. Guns allow the physically weak to defend themselves from the strong. Is it more arrogant to give everyone an equal chance to defend themselves or to deny them the right to defend themselves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. These are relevant to my right to seek restrictive gun regulation
The Virginia Declaration of Rights

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.


Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


So, you don't have a right to those weapons outside of the determination of the legislature to allow the possession of such weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I don't live in Virginia.
From the Constitution of the State of CT:

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Government has the power to regulate that right.
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 05:10 PM by bigtree
And will continue to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. That's true.
But it doesn't make it right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. FeebMaster
Thank you for this discussion. I will not ignore your views in my debate and pursuit of the issues surrounding gun ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueD Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. That's not really true
The assault weapons ban has no gun lock provision. Renewing the ban has no effect on the safe storage of weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. That is a shame and If I had my way I would change that
I did not mean to imply that that was in the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Well...
Despite what you might think, I actually support background checks and waiting periods. I'd even go so far as to support state licensure for gun ownership.

My beef is with the AWB, which is a ban on cosmetic features that make firearms resemble their fully-automatic counterparts. It bans certain guns for being "scary looking."

Your statistics are compelling, but they don't really correspond to the AWB because "assault weapons" are used in a tiny fraction of violent crimes to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I support the toughening of weapons bans and the addition of more
of these assault weapons. The weasely language in the bill is due to a false assertion that private individuals have a need or a right to destructive weapons. I don't think there is a need for guns in private hands outside of hunting, which I deplore when engaged as a 'sport'. Target shooting is a worthless pursuit also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueD Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. When is congress going to send him the bill?
IS there currently a bill in congress to renew it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babzilla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I'm sure Tom Delay will put it on the congressional agenda
any day now.

If not, Bush will remind dear Tom that it is important to his campaign effort that he keep the promises that he gave in the last election cycle.

p.s. don't hold your breath
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Hi TrueD!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueD Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frangible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
47. Doesn't the NRA realize they're being played
by the Republican party here? Bush/Kerry have almost the same exact gun stance; the difference is Kerry talks about it, and Bush hides in a hole.

Now Cheney is trying to win votes with fear and ignorance of the greatest single-issue voting block in the nation.

How can they be fooled so easily? Furthermore Bush's environmental policies mean a LOSS of wildlife habitat and areas to hunt.

I hate gun control, but the NRA is just as dumb as a box of rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC