Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush opposes AWB sunset.....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush opposes AWB sunset.....

    From a recent GOA news alert:
    http://www.gunowners.org/a041403.htm



    (Monday, April 14, 2003) -- In a surprise move this past weekend, the Bush administration announced its support for keeping the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban on the books.

    The law, which bans common household firearms, is set to expire in September, 2004. But the Knight Ridder news agency had a startling revelation for readers on Saturday.

    "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

    The "current law" McClellan was referring to is the ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines (over 10 rounds) which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and then-Representative Chuck Schumer of New York.

    The ban narrowly passed in both houses and was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

    Most bad legislation lives on forever. But in an effort to corral fence-sitters in Congress, Senator Feinstein inserted a "sunset" provision into the bill. This provision means that the ban expires in ten years -- specifically, in September of 2004.

    At the time, the sunset provision didn't seem like much of a victory. But it soon became clear that this provision would be our best hope for repealing the notorious gun grab. Recently, it was beginning to look like gun owners would have a better than average chance of winning.

    Until the announcement this past weekend.

    The White House's statement means that people will not be able to rely upon a presidential veto if Congress musters enough votes to extend the ban in the near future.

    Despite the fact that both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, the majority of Congressmen are either fence-sitters or anti-gun.

    It is quite possible that the gun grabbers can get 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House to reauthorize the semi-auto ban and make it permanent.

    This makes the recent announcement all the more distressing. But Bush's position is not written in stone -- at least not yet.

    Because the above quote was not made by the President himself or by his primary spokesman, Ari Fleischer, there is still some "wiggle room" that will allow the President to reverse course and do the right thing.

    THAT IS WHY IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT EVERY GUN OWNER WRITE THE PRESIDENT AND URGE HIM TO REMAIN TRUE TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE.

    George Bush is President today because gun owners went to the polls and voted for him over Al Gore in 2000. Pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states -- Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas -- and with those states, the victory went to Bush.

    This would be a horrible mistake if the President were to turn his back on gun owners and take a page out of the Clinton-Gore playbook. Perhaps this statement over the weekend was a "trial balloon." We can only hope so. If it was a trial balloon, then we need to "shoot it down" in a hurry.

    It is absolutely vital that we succeed in inundating the White House in opposition to this ban. This unconstitutional law must be repealed. Otherwise, it will be used as a precedent to ban even more guns.
    "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

  • #2
    I must say i am a little suprised by this.I do not own any firearms,though i am pro-gun ownership.The only part i do not understand is where people feel they need to own an AK-47 or such,i'm not against it i just don't understand.Around here most gun ownership is for hunting and i doubt if even during bear season such firepower would be needed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by John Paul
      I must say i am a little suprised by this.I do not own any firearms,though i am pro-gun ownership.The only part i do not understand is where people feel they need to own an AK-47 or such,i'm not against it i just don't understand.Around here most gun ownership is for hunting and i doubt if even during bear season such firepower would be needed.
      Is it wise to own an automatic assault rifle? I don't know about that.

      For me, I am pro-gun ownership, just like you are. I believe that these assault rifles should be permitted only in these organized militias. But such militias would have to be registered with the states, and I'm not so sure if this is wise, if the USA were to come under dictatorship, I doubt it's wise to register a militia unit.

      Nevertheless, I am firmly against any kind of gun control. The one thing America need to remember is that the source of power comes from the people, not the United States government, not even the President.

      I am not suggesting we build up stockpiles of various assault rifles like Waco or Ruby Ridge, just that something that has to be done in time of crisis with common sense and willingness to agree with the federal authorities on how best to keep the citizens well armed and protected with the second amendment in the Bill of Rights.

      Dan
      Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

      "Aim small, miss small."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cheetah772


        Is it wise to own an automatic assault rifle? I don't know about that.
        The AWB banned certain features and certain SEMI-auto weapons. Full auto weapons are still legal to own in some states; they just can not have been made after 86 if a private citizen owns it. I personally though think even that ban should be lifted. The only registered, NFA complient, full auto used in a crime was by a police officer.

        For me, I am pro-gun ownership, just like you are. I believe that these assault rifles should be permitted only in these organized militias. But such militias would have to be registered with the states, and I'm not so sure if this is wise, if the USA were to come under dictatorship, I doubt it's wise to register a militia unit.
        I think we should be own them no matter what. Gun control, in the US, only effects law abiding citizens.

        Nevertheless, I am firmly against any kind of gun control. The one thing America need to remember is that the source of power comes from the people, not the United States government, not even the President.
        Exactly, and in order to have power the people need to be able to defend themselves, from all forms of abuse.


        I am not suggesting we build up stockpiles of various assault rifles like Waco or Ruby Ridge, just that something that has to be done in time of crisis with common sense and willingness to agree with the federal authorities on how best to keep the citizens well armed and protected with the second amendment in the Bill of Rights.
        Ruby Ridge? Full of assualt rifles? Man read about it first, Weaver sold some cut down shotguns; thats why his wife and son got murdered.(To call their deaths anything else is sickning)

        Waco? Yep they owned guns(even assualt rifles) and were religous nuts. Does that mean they needed to be BBQ'd on TV? I hate to tell the government but the people who stepped ashore here were nuts with guns.

        _Tim
        "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm against most gun control laws. The Right to Bear Arms is guaranteed in the Constitution. I don't understand what gives the government the right to walk against it. Clinton used crime. He brought five star officers and victims of gun violence to Washington, DC and they all hooted and screamed about how banning guns would save lives, etc. He quietly ignored a survey conducted of 500 Chiefs of Police that had the majority claiming gun control would not make the streets safer.

          If you are going to commit murder, I highly doubt you'll say, "I'd better kill him with knife so I won't get ten years on top of the death penalty.

          As for automatic rifles, I would like to own a real M4A1 RIS instead of AirSoft. I also want an MP5A2. No reason in particular. I just like guns. And since I'm a responsible indvidual who understands the dangers and pain a gun can bring, I should have that right. I don't need the government telling I am too naive or stupid to have a gun.

          Asscroft, and his Bush need to re-read the Constitution. Crime existed in 1776. I'm certain our founders knew the risk, but based their decision on a higher purpose.

          Thanks for the head's up Tim.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            Gun control is a interesting issue. A line has to drawn somewhere, otherwise a citizen could go out, buy several stinger missiles, and kill several hundred people before being caught. However I see no reason the government should ban weapons that can be used for self-defense purposes against another individual.
            "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

            Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tim McBride

              Ruby Ridge? Full of assualt rifles? Man read about it first, Weaver sold some cut down shotguns; thats why his wife and son got murdered.(To call their deaths anything else is sickning)

              Waco? Yep they owned guns(even assualt rifles) and were religous nuts. Does that mean they needed to be BBQ'd on TV? I hate to tell the government but the people who stepped ashore here were nuts with guns.

              _Tim
              Thanks, I guess I'm missing A LOT of information about Ruby Ridge and what really happened at Waco.

              I think these people at Wacos were religious nuts, just as you said, does that mean they deserve to be arrested by ATF and FBI agents? There were some sexual abuse issues, and brainwashing involved here. Whether it was right or wrong to surround them with such government's firepower is not the main issue, it is about whether these kind of people and law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own assault rifles. And in this regard, I do fully support Waco people's claim they had the right to own assault rifles, it doesn't really matter if they were religious nuts.

              I suppose the one could look at me as a religious nut because I do invoke God's name and believe in conservative values. I still retain the righ to own an assault rifle free of government's control.

              Of course, there's always a positive and negative side to everything.

              Dan

              PS. Tim, you make very good points!
              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

              "Aim small, miss small."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Chuck
                Gun control is a interesting issue. A line has to drawn somewhere, otherwise a citizen could go out, buy several stinger missiles, and kill several hundred people before being caught. However I see no reason the government should ban weapons that can be used for self-defense purposes against another individual.
                Agreed, there is reasonable REGULATION(Like the '34 National Firearms control act) and then their are outright bans.
                Regulation in moderation is tolerable, Banning is not in my book.


                _Tim
                Last edited by Tim McBride; 15 Apr 03, 00:17.
                "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cheetah772


                  Thanks, I guess I'm missing A LOT of information about Ruby Ridge and what really happened at Waco.

                  I think these people at Wacos were religious nuts, just as you said, does that mean they deserve to be arrested by ATF and FBI agents? There were some sexual abuse issues, and brainwashing involved here. Whether it was right or wrong to surround them with such government's firepower is not the main issue, it is about whether these kind of people and law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own assault rifles. And in this regard, I do fully support Waco people's claim they had the right to own assault rifles, it doesn't really matter if they were religious nuts.

                  I suppose the one could look at me as a religious nut because I do invoke God's name and believe in conservative values. I still retain the righ to own an assault rifle free of government's control.

                  Of course, there's always a positive and negative side to everything.

                  Dan

                  PS. Tim, you make very good points!
                  I agree that Waco had problems, in fact they had no problem when the local sherrif showed up weeks before and talked to them. They got defensive when the ATF came in with a no-knock warrant in ski mask and body armor. It could have been handled VERY differently.

                  Ruby Ridge is the one incident I have seen that actually disgusted me. Weaver need to go to jail. He DID break the law. But why did they do what they did. They could have just waited till he came into town next and arrested him then. Instead the killed his young son, and his unarmed wife(who was holding her baby when a FBI sniper put a bullet in her).

                  _Tim
                  "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Chuck
                    Gun control is a interesting issue. A line has to drawn somewhere, otherwise a citizen could go out, buy several stinger missiles, and kill several hundred people before being caught. However I see no reason the government should ban weapons that can be used for self-defense purposes against another individual.
                    I think the founding fathers still knew the difference between small arms and large military equipment such as cannons. That's why they penned in "arms" instead of "weapons" which would in theory be even more vague than "arms."

                    A Stinger missile cannot fit the description of "arms." Of course, we could argue about the relative sizes of various weapons, and whether they would fit the description of "arms."

                    Far from arguing these points, it's worth to point out that the individuals are banned from owning a M1A1 tank or a F-117 Stealth Fighter.

                    What about a squad-sized machine gun like M292 (a newer variant of old M60)? Well, since it does fit the description of "arms" something that can be shouldered and fired with. Therefore in theory the individuals do have the right to own this. However, once again, we are faces with how to describe "arms." Is it to be understood in self-defense for civilian or military purposes? Can there be two different self-defense definitions -- one for civilian and military? Or no?

                    Another interesting explanation may lay in how the "arms" are built, the founding fathers never imagined the "arms" could be mass-produced so easily as today. They may have imagined the "arms" to be custom-made by the individuals or gunsmiths. We would have to examine this legal definition.

                    Dan
                    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                    "Aim small, miss small."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deltapooh
                      As for automatic rifles, I would like to own a real M4A1 RIS instead of AirSoft. I also want an MP5A2. No reason in particular. I just like guns. And since I'm a responsible indvidual who understands the dangers and pain a gun can bring, I should have that right. I don't need the government telling I am too naive or stupid to have a gun.
                      Are Full auto's prohibited in the Bayou state?
                      Anyways you should be able to own a semi version of eithe rof those.
                      Asscroft, and his Bush need to re-read the Constitution. Crime existed in 1776. I'm certain our founders knew the risk, but based their decision on a higher purpose.

                      Thanks for the head's up Tim.
                      No problem
                      "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X