Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

AWB due to expire on Monday

Gun Control AWB Expires 2004 2nd Amendment

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 12:38 PM

G: Canadians have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

#42 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 01:00 PM

prolog, on Sep 14 2004, 12:35 PM, said:

Just a question, and to bring this back to the original topic of firearms/AWB: if the American government proposed a system of registration of all firearms (or even just AWs) and the ability to take them away should they suspect that they'd be used for some terrorist plot, what would the reaction be?  I think there'd be  outrage.
I'm not a gun-buyer, but I'm pretty sure that all gun purchases are already registered.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#43 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 01:04 PM

Well, I'm kind of in the middle here.

There is no reason to have assault weapons, it's just common sense.

That being said, from what I've seen on all sides, the ban didn't do much.  There have been many, many, news pieces that basically say they've been selling those weapons all along in slightly modified form, most of which have nothing to do with anything.  Non-telescoping stocks and non-pistol grips, big deal.  

It appears that there were only 2 things in the bill that actually did anything:  
  Clips could not hold more than 10 rounds.  
  Flash suppressors were illegal so the police would be able to better see where shots were coming from.

I feel passing a bill with these two elements is reasonable and would be the right thing to do.

Now, as far as the politics,  Kerry very carefully delayed saying anything about the bill until it was too late.  Bush has said he'd sign it, what ever Kerry says about it being Bush's fault, Kerry is the senator.  It's congress' job to pass a bill which the president can then sign or veto.   Did Kerry sponser a renewal bill?  Has Kerry been drumming up support for the last several months?  That would be a big fat NO!!!!  Why, because most democrats in congress are against renewing it because they are afraid of the NRA, just like lots of republicans. They don't want to be put on the spot either passing the bill and getting into trouble with the NRA, or not passing and getting into trouble with the people, so they all layed low.  That would hardly be the president's fault.  As I've said elsewhere, Kerry does know what job he's currently being paid for, doesn't he?

#44 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 01:19 PM

Quote

Something I don't understand, Rov.

Dick Cheney basically pulls the same B.S. a week or two ago, telling American voters that they can expect another big terror attack if Kerry is elected.

No he didn't, but thanks for playing. We've dealt with that in the other thread. The construction was If (A & B), then C, not If A then (B&G).

Quote

I know you're big on personal freedoms, which is evidenced by at least an earlier post in this thread. So you're going to set aside the Patriot Act

... the Patriot Act that John Kerry voted for.

Quote

the Arab-Americans illegally detained after Sept. 11, 2001, and other blatant violations of liberties since Bush took office

We've had our share of problems, granted. Some of them are inevitable consequences of a new security situation, some aren't. But a candidate who views protecting a constitutional right as 'helping terrorists' is too dangerous to have in office. It's as nakedly offensive as if Bush said, "We have to ban Islam, otherwise we're allowing terrorist ideology to spread here in the States.". Or, "We have to ban newspapers from being critical of the government, otherwise terrorists could gain valuable tactical information.". Or something similar. The point is that Kerry is proposing cutting at the very heart of the constitution for fears of terrorism. This is especially odd since, by my recollection, terrorists didn't use guns on 9/11, at Oklahoma City, or the first WTC bombing.

Quote

you're going to ignore the Republican stance on homosexuality, and their attempts to subvert the liberty of consenting adults by trying to pass a constitutional amendment

If the Republicans pass a constitutional amendment (which they won't), they're playing by the rules. Conversely, Kerry and the Democrats are trying to do an end-run around the constitution by simply passing legislation. [The irony is that the 'right to choose'-- something fabricated by judges, and something that even pro-choice advocates admit is contrived-- is far more jealously protected than a right which is actually IN the constitution.]

Quote

; you're going to ignore all these, hold your nose, and vote for another term for the Bush administration, because the increase in liberties with the lapse of the AWB somehow counteracts all else Bush has done in the past four years with regards to attacking personal and civil liberties?

Again, what Kerry is proposing is banning Islam, or newspapers, or any other constitutionally protected right.  Further, most of the claims about abridged civil liberties under Bush are exaggerated; even if they weren't, there's no indication that John Kerry would do much differently in that regard. In this crucial area, there's really no difference between the candidates.

Refresh my memory: What legislation, precisely, has Kerry introduced in the area of civil liberties? Legislation overturning the Patriot Act? Isn't he ostensibly a senator?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#45 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 04:18 PM

Quoth Rov:

Quote

No he didn't, but thanks for playing. We've dealt with that in the other thread. The construction was If (A & B), then C, not If A then (B&G).

Really?  Over in this thread (I assume this is the thread you're talking about), there hardly seems to be consensus.  A direct quote from Cheney is "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again."  which is a pretty big "K -> Hit" in my opinion, regardless of all the context that Drew provides.

Quote

... the Patriot Act that John Kerry voted for.

Him and what, just about every other senator?  98 Yea, 1 Nay, 1 Not Voting.  Democrats and Republicans alike voted for it.  It was introduced barely month after the terrorist attacks, the horror was fresh in everyone's mind, and thus, it seemed a no-brainer at the time.  For that, I can't  blame them.  But I'd rather have the president be of the party that is friendlier to civil liberty groups such as the EFF and ACLU than the party who introduced the bill in the first place.

"Nobody's perfect" is what I'm trying to say.

Quote

But a candidate who views protecting a constitutional right as 'helping terrorists' is too dangerous to have in office.

Yes, the 2nd amendment.  But remember that gun control is perfectly constitutional: see USA vs. Miller (1939).  The court ruled that sawed-off shotguns did not have "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", and said that therefore "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".  Like it or loathe it, that's the decision that allowed the government to limit what arms the public could legally own.  Thus, if the government decides to ban so-called assault weapons (which in my opinion is okay, though I really only have a problem with flash suppressors and grenade launchers), that's in line with the SCOTUS' decision.  And besides, RPGs/Stingers/hand grenades/etc. all cannot be privately owned in the U.S., to the best of my knowledge.  So there is a line, and it is drawn, so I disagree that the AWB is unconstitutional.  If you weren't implying that, then I apologize; that's how I'm reading it.

Quote

This is especially odd since, by my recollection, terrorists didn't use guns on 9/11, at Oklahoma City, or the first WTC bombing.

No, because bombs (especially airplane-sized bombs) are more efficient for the intended purpose.  But make no mistake, guns are still a favoured terrorist weapon: see Beslan, or Northern Ireland, or Iraq.

Quote

If the Republicans pass a constitutional amendment (which they won't), they're playing by the rules. Conversely, Kerry and the Democrats are trying to do an end-run around the constitution by simply passing legislation.

I agree that the Republicans really had no chance of passing the amendment.  It was probably done just to pacify Bush supporters in various constituencies.  It's the spirit of it, however, that troubles me.  It seeks to enshrine intolerance in the constitution alongside freedom of speech and assembly.

What's wrong with simply passing legislation?  My memory of the U.S. constitution is that it requires 2/3rd majority, correct?  Isn't it thus harder to overturn a bad amendement rather than a bad piece of legislation?

Quote

Again, what Kerry is proposing is banning Islam, or newspapers, or any other constitutionally protected right.

If I'm not off on Miller vs. U.S. (1939) (help me out, Lil, I'm the furthest thing from a lawyer), then your analogy is off, and Kerry is doing nothing of the sort.

Quote

Refresh my memory: What legislation, precisely, has Kerry introduced in the area of civil liberties? Legislation overturning the Patriot Act? Isn't he ostensibly a senator?

None.  As I said earlier in the thread, the Democrats are essentially Republicans Lite.  To me, there are only two reasons to vote for them over the Republicans: first, they're *slightly* friendlier with the EFF, ACLU, and similar organizations; and second, at least they didn't table the foul legislation in the first place.  Maybe they would have had they been in the same situation.  A lot of people have suggested this.  We probably won't ever know this, however.

The similarities between the two parties are frustratingly many.

#46 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 06:48 PM

I really can't see any good reason to own assult weapons, they're use is only to kill people, and if you need one to hunt with I really don't think there's a season for assult weapons. :wacko:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Gun Control, AWB Expires, 2004, 2nd Amendment

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users