Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terroris

[Jamie6.5]

No doubt it grew out of this:

Rate of Banned Assault Weapons Used in Crime Down by
Nearly Two-thirds Since Passage of 1994 Law

Senators Feinstein and Schumer Also Announce Broad Coalition
in Support of Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban

See Graph: Reduction of Banned Assault Weapons Recovered in Crimes

November 5, 2003​

It even mention's Bush's support for it. The support he offered until John Ashcroft showed GW the error of his ways.

The entire page can be viewed here:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultwepsrate1.htm

 

[Trlsmn]

No doubt it grew out of this:

Rate of Banned Assault Weapons Used in Crime Down by
Nearly Two-thirds Since Passage of 1994 Law

Senators Feinstein and Schumer Also Announce Broad Coalition
in Support of Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban

See Graph: Reduction of Banned Assault Weapons Recovered in Crimes

November 5, 2003​

It even mention's Bush's support for it. The support he offered until John Ashcroft showed GW the error of his ways.

The entire page can be viewed here:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultwepsrate1.htm

An answer supported by evidence, bravo sir!

 

[Stomper]

The judges are still deciding if this is a K.O. or a T.K.O.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

That last sentence does nothing but self aggrandize and attempts to lower me below you, which in itself shows an insecurity in not being able to deal on a level stance, aka let the relevant facts show the trut

No, it points out a possible means for you to better understand the workings of legislation. A topic with which you are either misrepresenting or showing a lack of understanding.

OK back to reality, I'm not speaking of, nor did i quote SB 1805. you did and are, if you will look up you will see I'm speaking of the House equivalent that was passed........

And you somehow think that the house is unaware of what is planned in the senate? You somehow thing congressmen and senators do not work together in any way?

And BTW I did research SB1805 and how it was defeated before I originally posted about the attempt to stick the AWB extension on the HB.

And yet you still want to pretend Dems were in support of the measure. Even though only a tiny number voted for the bill?

An answer supported by evidence, bravo sir!

You think an assertion by Feinstein and Schumer is evidence of support? Even though she claims said support with no supporting figures or even valid references to said supporters inside the political arena? You really consider that "evidence" of anything? So you think when she says the vast majority of citizens support her views on gun control you believe her? The only person she even mentions by name is Bush. Do you truly believe he was actually supporting her cause or do you believe she chose to misrepresent his lack of opposition (and a couple off the cuff comments) as support?

 

[Stomper]

You think an assertion by Feinstein and Schumer is evidence of support? Even though she claims said support with no supporting figures or even valid references to said supporters inside the political arena? You really consider that "evidence" of anything? So you think when she says the vast majority of citizens support her views on gun control you believe her? The only person she even mentions by name is Bush. Do you truly believe he was actually supporting her cause or do you believe she chose to misrepresent his lack of opposition (and a couple off the cuff comments) as support?

Although I agree with you poo-pooing her credibility in ANYTHING she says, I see this whole argument as a moot point- this polictian said and did this, that politician said and did that... nobody believes anything in either direction... geez, I hope when the Chinese finally take full control of the joint that this kind of stuff is rectified!

 

[Jamie6.5]

Keep serving up the Kool-aide Penguin. You might find a taker eventually.

Biden wrote the original AWB (according to him) with Schumer's support and help. Feinstein wrote the reinstatement bill and Schumer co-sponsored. Kennedy, Boxer, Kerry, Dodd, Inouye, Durbin, Levin, Biden and probably Spector the " 'Pub in Dem' clothing" would have voted for it. That's 11!
How many Dems were in the Senate in the 108th congress? The people I listed above have always been at the core of the anti-gunners in the Senate. They'd have traded favors for more votes among the dems if they could have.

Furthermore your explanation of how the dems put aside their beliefs for the sake of their jobs demonstrates their capacity and willingness for deceit in politcal dealings. Both with their constituents for re-election purposes, and with the American people in general.
Thanks for re-affirming my take on the current ruling party in DC. Seems it didn't change much in '06 at all.
Liars all.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Furthermore your explanation of how the dems put aside their beliefs for the sake of their jobs demonstrates their capacity and willingness for deceit in politcal dealings

That exists on both sides. The biggest difference between us is I am willing to see the reality of the situation and not toe the party line regardless of facts. I do not feel the need to try and demonize one side or the other. The reality is the Dems would not have imposed a new ban and even went out of their way to insure it's defeat in a very public manner. They were looking for a way to declare "I am with you moderate citizen!" and they seized upon this as a perfect opportunity...and it payed off for them. I am not trying to portray them as "gun lovers" or that they have somehow changed their spots. I am simply pointing out that they have no true spots and will do what is best for them and that in this case that was voting against an extension of the ban. The GOP has gotten so tied up in unification and intolerance of deviation from a narrow party line that they have lost the ability to adapt to public opinion and it has cost them.

 

[Trlsmn]

No, it points out a possible means for you to better understand the workings of legislation. A topic with which you are either misrepresenting or showing a lack of understanding.

And you came to this conclusion how? You can prove your point how?

And you somehow think that the house is unaware of what is planned in the senate? You somehow thing congressmen and senators do not work together in any way?

Is there a point here?

And yet you still want to pretend Dems were in support of the measure. Even though only a tiny number voted for the bill?

Finally a small semblance of substance in a sea of irrelevant minutia. My answer to the question is yes the Democrats that brought forth this legislation and the democrats that voted for it indeed supported it.

You think an assertion by Feinstein and Schumer is evidence of support?

Legislation put into a bill by it's very nature cannot be labeled as "an assertion" as it is (the bill) a tangible thing. I suggest you check this link for enlightenment:

http://www.google.com/search?q=asse...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Even though she claims said support with no supporting figures or even valid references to said supporters inside the political arena?

You don't consider the the people that passed the bill throught the house supporters?

You really consider that "evidence" of anything?

Yes, yes I do, and it was so eloquently proved to you with evidence in Jamie6.5's posts.

So you think when she says the vast majority of citizens support her views on gun control you believe her?

That's not really relevant, gun ban'rs ban guns, the majority opinion has never, and will never be a factor in their plans.

The only person she even mentions by name is Bush. Do you truly believe he was actually supporting her cause or do you believe she chose to misrepresent his lack of opposition (and a couple off the cuff comments) as support?

Are you really asking me if she would lie to achieve her objectives?



There may be a point in your previous post somewhere but I'm not seeing it.

Is that all you've got? or are you going to pull the "I'm an expert" card like you usually do in the face of overwhelming evidence!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

And you came to this conclusion how? You can prove your point how?

Maybe from the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about...even to the point where you are willing to quote Feinstein as a source of reliable information.

Is there a point here?

Yes, I guess you missed it...again.

My answer to the question is yes the Democrats that brought forth this legislation and the democrats that voted for it indeed supported it.

There is a little of that intellectual dishonesty again. Only eight Senators voted for the bill. Are you trying to portray that as strong support? When a far-right republican introduces an outlandish bill and two or three people vote for it does that make them all nut cases?

Legislation put into a bill by it's very nature cannot be labeled as "an assertion" as it is (the bill) a tangible thing. I suggest you check this link for enlightenment:

Wow, you missed that one completely. I was stating that you are taking something said (or asserted) by Feinstein (that she had wide support) as gospel with no other validation. You need to take your own advice and look up the word "assertion."

You don't consider the the people that passed the bill throught the house supporters?

Nope, not f they had alternative motives. Such as providing a stage to appear in touch with the common man on the topic of gun control when a national election was looming. A tactic that succeeded and worked very well for them.

Yes, yes I do, and it was so eloquently proved to you with evidence in Jamie6.5's posts.

Once again, you are actually using a statement from Feinstein as proof? Seriously?

 

[Trlsmn]

Maybe from the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about...even to the point where you are willing to quote Feinstein as a source of reliable information.

Yes, I guess you missed it...again.

There is a little of that intellectual dishonesty again. Only eight Senators voted for the bill. Are you trying to portray that as strong support? When a far-right republican introduces an outlandish bill and two or three people vote for it does that make them all nut cases?

Wow, you missed that one completely. I was stating that you are taking something said (or asserted) by Feinstein (that she had wide support) as gospel with no other validation. You need to take your own advice and look up the word "assertion."

Nope, not f they had alternative motives. Such as providing a stage to appear in touch with the common man on the topic of gun control when a national election was looming. A tactic that succeeded and worked very well for them.

Once again, you are actually using a statement from Feinstein as proof? Seriously?

Actually look through my posts and show me where I have used "Feinsteins statement" as support for anything. I have clearly and consistently used her legislation a concrete provable thing.

The rest of your post has no substance or relevance to the the point, so there is no need to comment on it, do you even remember what that point was?

 

[Scott]

So I will ask again...what did the Bush administration do to help gun owners during their six year uncontested reign?[/QUOTE]

Lets ask this question, what did he do to prevent anyone from having guns? votes, laws, or restrictions?

Scott

 

[cameronhu]

Is that all you've got? or are you going to pull the "I'm an expert" card like you usually do in the face of overwhelming evidence!

Overwhelming evidence? Like, Niger Yellowcake overwhelming? Or just mobile chemical traincar overwhelming.

Let's step back a sec to the original argument: Bush didn't do much positive work for the 2nd amendment. Those who disagreed cited Ashcroft, Bolton and the fact the AWB was sunsetted as a compelling argument that Bush was pro-gun. 8 years in office, half that with majority house and senate -- That seems like pretty weak evidence to me, especially considering my feelings about Ashcroft. Pro war? Yes. Pro 2nd Amendment? No.

I very much doubt that if we see little to no movement on anti-2nd amendment legislation in the next four years folks will consider Obama pro-gun. But that's the argument being made for Bush.

Penguin commented that "polls showed that [the AWB expiration ]would have happened even with democratic rule." and that "the AWB had become unpopular even with most democratic candidates."

The "overwhelming evidence" against this: Feinstein and Shumer.

OK, I have a difficult time believing MOST democratic candidates operate in lock-step with Feinstein and Shumer; especially southern democrats. -- That's one **** of a stretch. Now, I'm not sure where one would look for polls conducted on democratic candidates, so proving / disproving this might be tough. Honestly, I don't think we'll ever know without a vote. But as far as overwhelming evidence to the contrary... Nope.

 

[Trlsmn]

In retrospect I probably should have made this statement:

Is that all you've got? or are you going to pull the "I'm an expert" card like you usually do when you have no tangible proof!

The statement though was made as a generality in so far as he has a habit of stating "You are wrong because, I being an expert know better" proof be damned.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Penguin commented that "polls showed that [the AWB expiration ]would have happened even with democratic rule." and that "the AWB had become unpopular even with most democratic candidates."

The "overwhelming evidence" against this: Feinstein and Shumer.

OK, I have a difficult time believing MOST democratic candidates operate in lock-step with Feinstein and Shumer; especially southern democrats. -- That's one **** of a stretch. Now, I'm not sure where one would look for polls conducted on democratic candidates, so proving / disproving this might be tough. Honestly, I don't think we'll ever know without a vote. But as far as overwhelming evidence to the contrary... Nope.

Exactly. Why do some people have such a hard time understanding this? Why do some people have a hard time stepping outside the role of lock-step republican? Is it because they have been so conditioned over the last couple decades that any deviation from message is intolerable?

My original statement was that the AWB would have probably expired with or without Bush. The fact that only eight senators voted to the contrary is pretty much proof of that fact so trying to credit Bush with that as a pro-gun victory is pretty absurd. Of course, I guess when you have nothing else to show (and you are duty bound to support your guy no matter the reality of the situation) you have to make things up. Or worse yet do something absurd like trying to present a statement by Feinstein as evidence.

 

[Trlsmn]

Do you see me thanking Bush for anything? What you fail to grasp is we already have these rights so he couldn't have given us "more'er" but he could have taken some away, so to say Bush did nothing for us is rubbish!

What he did do is appoint favorable SCOTUS judges that ruled in favor of Heller so we did directly benefit from Bush.

 

[cameronhu]

I think the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. Expect the worst - hope for the best. Stay vigilant and wait and see what happens.

I don't know if there has been a solid friend-of-the-second-amendment president since Teddy Roosevelt. It's one thing to court voters with a bunch of patriotic NRA chatter, and quite another to actually support something in deed. I expect that Obama will probably be harder on the 2nd Amendment, and friendlier to the 1st.
If McCain had been elected, it would have been the other way around. Until the general public comes to some understanding that giving up protection to _any_ of our rights is a BAD thing, we're going to be playing this ridiculous game - whittling away what we have left - and arguing about who screwed us the worst.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Do you see me thanking Bush for anything? What you fail to grasp is we already have these rights so he couldn't have given us "more'er" but he could have taken some away, so to say Bush did nothing for us is rubbish!

That's crap and you know it. You very inability to admit Bush did nothing shows your bias. Bush did nothing and could have done a great deal...or are you going to try and pretend there are no gun rights issues that could have been severely aided by national recognition and that their are no 2A issues that could have benefitted greatly from national endorsement and definition? How about national recognition that states should respect carry permits from all other states? that is just one issue. So don't walk in here with that garbage about he did all he could because there was nothing that needed done.

 

[Trlsmn]

I think the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. Expect the worst - hope for the best. Stay vigilant and wait and see what happens.

I don't know if there has been a solid friend-of-the-second-amendment president since Teddy Roosevelt. It's one thing to court voters with a bunch of patriotic NRA chatter, and quite another to actually support something in deed. I expect that Obama will probably be harder on the 2nd Amendment, and friendlier to the 1st.
If McCain had been elected, it would have been the other way around. Until the general public comes to some understanding that giving up protection to _any_ of our rights is a BAD thing, we're going to be playing this ridiculous game - whittling away what we have left - and arguing about who screwed us the worst.

I don't consider McCain a friend to our cause either!

I've said before that I've drawn a line in the sand, irregardless of party those who cross the line to the gun banners side will never be accepted back on my side of the line.

 

[Trlsmn]

That's crap and you know it. You very inability to admit Bush did nothing shows your bias. Bush did nothing and could have done a great deal...or are you going to try and pretend there are no gun rights issues that could have been severely aided by national recognition and that their are no 2A issues that could have benefitted greatly from national endorsement and definition? How about national recognition that states should respect carry permits from all other states? that is just one issue. So don't walk in here with that garbage about he did all he could because there was nothing that needed done.

What could he give us that we don't have?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I don't know if there has been a solid friend-of-the-second-amendment president since Teddy Roosevelt. It's one thing to court voters with a bunch of patriotic NRA chatter, and quite another to actually support something in deed. I expect that Obama will probably be harder on the 2nd Amendment, and friendlier to the 1st.

Obama was left with such a complete mess that I doubt he will even have time to think about the 2A during his term.

The only truly 2A friendly part of our governing bodies in this nation have been the "liberal" courts. All the major victories and advancements made in the pro-gun movement have been made though legal action. There have been no real victories from law makers outside of castle doctrine laws in a long time.