Making the constitution useless

[Casper]

Why is it that the gov't is so blatently trying to take away our constitution little by little?

Take a look at this new bill that Kerry is co-sponsoring. Now, Bush isn't any better with his Patriot act, but Kerry has been on both sides of that so I don't really know how he feels about it. I do, however, know that he respects the constitution no more than the current office.




Senate Bill 1431 is the single biggest threat to the Constitution currently in the Senate. It is labeled the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003'. I encourage you to go read it for yourself.



Senate Bill 1431:



extends the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban.
redefines what a 'semiautomatic assault weapon' (SAW) is to include all 'post-ban' firearms plus many more greatly expanding the pool of firearms no longer available to the general public.
makes all firearms 'substantially similar' to SAWs to be SAWs also.
makes all semiautomatic shotguns into SAWs, as all designs are derivative works of military/police firearms.
makes private transfers of SAWs illegal.
makes repair of existing guns illegal by preventing parts availability.
empowers the Attorney General to define new SAWs that would then be illegal for further consumer manufacture.
makes transfer of any large capacity magazines illegal, even to family members.
plus more.



Now, if you are still comfortable, recognize that this has to do with a lot more than just AR-15s, Colt Match Target Rifles or any of the other black rifles. The Attorney General decides what guns are SAWs. If a firearm is used by the military or law enforcement, there is a presumption that it is an SAW. Then all derivative firearms become SAWs under the sweeping definition.



If this were not enough, by empowering the Attorney General as this law does, Congress codifies the concept that the Second Amendment only covers 'sporting arms'. Additionally, our Second Amendment rights will now be interpreted by a political appointee. Do you want a Janet Reno deciding what guns you can and can not have?



This bill is currently sitting in the Judiciary Committee. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer and ten others are all cosponsors of this bill. If enacted, it has no automatic expiration date.



The patriot act
Religously motivated amendments (at least attempts)
and now this

Whats next?

 

[Grim]

Quote[/b] ]Whats next?

I don't want to see whats next.

 

[rubrarubra]

Great - let the government slowly take away our means to defend ourselves, until the military and law enforcement have the power to enforce anything they want. Back in the days when the constitution was written, people were purposely allowed to own firearms and trained to use them, so that we would have a militia instead of the military...
Peter

 

[rattler]

you nailed it on the head Casper. most dont realize that the original Clinton "assault weapons" ban just banned guns based on cosmetics. in other words it said nothing about how the rifle functioned just what it looked like. to top it off those rifles that were banned according to several well funded studies showed that before the ban they were used in less than 5% of all violent crimes in volving guns and that percentage has stayed the same after the ban. the ban also had nothing to do with automatic weapons which have been regulated since the 1920's or so.

whats next a ban on my pump and lever action hunting rifles? i can work them about as fast as someone with a semi-auto, prolly more acuratly too. how about the classic and long lived Browning BAR hunting rifle? they are trying to turn us into the next Britain or Austrailia(please i mean no offence to members here who live in these countries, your government out lawed the guns not you). also where will my Lee-Enfield 303 wind up? with l bit of training this bolt action can be operated about as fast as a full auto. there was a group of i believe British soldiers during one of the world wars that got good enough with them that the enemy SWORE up and down they were being attacked with fully automatic weapons. and ppl on here have said gun bans arent a big deal? this one will affect the AVERAGE AMERICAN HUNTER!

Rattler

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

The Right To Bear Arms is totally needed, since a standing militia with the ability to stand up to a government gone bad was seen as essential by the forefather's of our nation. Oh, there is little enough room for a true revolution even if it was mandated by a truly corrupt administration: the Vietnam demonstrations and Kent State proved that! We are already controlled and there will be no "peoples revolution" no matter what our lot is, with or without weapons. Should this Bill pass, we will have proven ourselves a nation of sheep free to roam the limits dictated to us as long as we provide regular amounts of wool and milk, but that is not freedom as our forefather's understood it, or as I reckon it!

A society incapable of defending itself is powerless.

As for me personally, the day that Bill passes to law is the day I seek a SAW on the black market along with whatever true patriots are left here in the Home of the Brave.

Will someone PLEASE put Bush out of office while I still have some shred of National Pride left in me? Can we please get rid of this administration while there is still a Constitution left and some untouched habitat...........




ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

 

[Jason Wong]

Quote[/b] (rubrarubra @ July 19 2004,10:38)]Great - let the government slowly take away our means to defend ourselves, until the military and law enforcement have the power to enforce anything they want.  Back in the days when the constitution was written, people were purposely allowed to own firearms and trained to use them, so that we would have a militia instead of the military...
Peter

A milita? Wouldn't it be a bit dangerous - Mafia...bt I do agree that the government has no right to take way all your, uhm, right, but only to a precautionary level.

 

[Capslock]

OK, I agree with the sentiments here. But let's be honest about it and not devolve into hyperbole. The governemnt already controls what weapons you can have and what you can't. You can't have a nuclear bomb. You can't have a hand grenade. You can't have a fully automatic weapon. But did that mean we can't be armed? Did that violate our Constitutional rights? I don't see anyone from the GOP arguing that we need to extend the 2nd ammendment to fully automatic weapons.

So, the questions is simply where one draws the line. The assault weapons ban from before was poorly written and didn't correctly define the targets of the legislation, and was easily bypassed by cosmetic and minor modifications. So, this simply restores the original intent of the legislation. I don't see it as a Constitutional crisis by any means.

However, I think the original assault weapons ban was foolish to begin with. So-called "assault weapons" are not the problem in this country. Far, far more people are killed by handguns, so it seems that the ban was made to appeal to people's emotions and prejudices. It should never have been passed in the first place. And I, like many here, will probably acquire one as soon as it looks like the ban will pass.

Capslock

 

[Jason Wong]

Quote[/b] ]You can't have a nuclear bomb. You can't have a hand grenade. You can't have a fully automatic weapon.

And why not?

Might I add that singapore is much much much more strict on weapons. At least some countries you can own arms if you have a license, but here only the police can have them. On the good side, singapore's a safe place. But the control the government has is just tooooo much, I would say. If they find you with a weapon, they'd make you wish you've never been born - black marks all over your record, jail as your home, pretty gruesome caning - oh the humanity!!!

Some ppl say you faint after 3 strokes or less, is it as bad in the US? I think not...

Jason

 

[rattler]

you can have an automatic weapon. however it requires an extensive background check and the $200 machine gun transfer stamp. also truely legal machine guns cost big $$$$, i beleive a legal full auto M16 is around $4000 or more, a semi auto AR-15 can be had for $500. black market ones are quite a bit cheaper since alot of small arms like my SKS and the Ruger mini 14 can be made fully automatic by anyone with a lil knowlege and the skill to do it. just thought i would clear this bit of info up. should this bill pass and i doubt it will, there will be ALOT of the newly illegal SAW's well hidden by ppl such as myself across the country.

Rattler

 

[rattler]

i just found this post on another forum. its not mine but i thought i would copy it here. ps RTKABA means "The Right To Keep And Bare Arms"

I keep hearing mention of the notion that one is likely to "lose his RTKABA if he does this or that." One cannot lose that right. Who would take it away? The Government? Impossible, as the government was not the source of this right to start with. The only thing government can do is to stop recognizing a man's RTKABA, in essence declare war on his personal liberties, making him a second class citizen (a sort of serf-status or slave, really) in the Republic. His rights, however, remain exactly as they were when he first acquired adult status.

We are endowed by our Creator (NOT GOVERNMENT) with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, having a right to something, means that one may rightly defend that thing. Having a right to life, for instance, mean that we have the right to defend our life, and to the effective means thereto, i.e., the latest in personal arms, otherwise we cannot truly say that we have a right to life. It is precisely to secure this right to personal arms (among other rights) that legitimate governments are instituted among men to start with. That's legitimate government's only real function. If it fails in that function, it has become destructive to its own ends, and the word for that is tyranny. In which case it becomes the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. So, when government seeks to deny a human being at liberty an inalienable right (i.e., a right permanently attached to his being a human being at liberty), it actually loses its own legitimacy as a government.

 

[rattler]

i cant find the bill on the senate.gov web site. where did you find it?

Rattler

EDIT: i found it.....it originated in the House not in the Senate as H. R. 2038 and this one is SCARY in what it eliminates.

 

[rattler]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02038:|/bss/d108query.html|

is the website....down on the bottom is Text of Legislation and that is the actual bill. read it for yourself and if you have any knowlege of rifles your jaw WILL DROP! some of those rifles such as the AR-15's are made by alot of different companies here in the United States. this bann would basically make those companies close their doors and they employ lots of good hard working americans who are just making rifles that are usually used for "punching paper" or for shooting varmints.

Rattler

 

[Clint]

i'm ALL for it. less guns is a good thing. we don't even need guns at all.

 

[Casper]

Capslock,

The intent of our forefathers when they wrote the right to bear arms in the constitution was so that normal people could protect and defend themselves from foriegn and domestic threats.

Banning hunting amunition, rifles that are in a very small way a threat to the public, and on top of that, giving 1 single person SOLE RIGHT to name what gets banned is very much against the intent of the constitution.

Think of it this way, if this bill passes the Attorney General has the power to make EVERY SINGLE GUN a SAW, hence making them illiegal. So now it gets worse, not only does the senate take away part of our rights, they also give one person the power to completly suspend our constitutional right.


As far as Tamlins post on the Bush admin, this bill is sponsored by John Kerry.

 

[Casper]

Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ July 19 2004,1:32)]i'm ALL for it. less guns is a good thing. we don't even need guns at all.

Or the freedom of speech

or the freedom to choose your own religion

or the freedom of the press

Naw, we don't need any of that silly stuff.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wern't you saying that the gov't didn't have the right to pass an amendment saying that gays could not marry?

 

[rattler]

after some carefull reading, no action has been made on this since June 2003 isnt this the one that was sunk not long ago? as to "we dont need guns" thats what Hitler told the Jews and look what happened there. i use guns for hunting and putting food on the table. i also keep them on hand to defend my family and property. the criminals will have guns and so will I.

rattler

 

[Clint]

your right, i did say that. they had no right.

those other issues are much different, and also, guns kill people, gay marriage, freedom of religion, free speach, etc, doesn't.

and you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

 

[rattler]

if the criminal has a gun how am i to defend myself? guns dont kill ppl ppl kill ppl. i read a story one time about a guy who tried to buy a gun to kill his wife. well there was a 3 day waiting period for the hand gun so he bought an axe instead and went home and hacked her up.

Rattler

 

[ZAK]

Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ July 19 2004,12:32)]i'm ALL for it. less guns is a good thing. we don't even need guns at all.

SURE!! we could live just like that other small peacefull country in Europe who's leader took away the right to bear arms in the 40's. Now what was the name of that country?
OH YEAH !!! GERMANY!! well they were peacefull until a ruthless Hitler took away the peopls right to defend themselves aginst oppresion. And once the people lost their ability to defend themselves aginst govt. Government it gladly began thinking for them. How would you defend you're self. I'd be carefull who I gave control to.

 

[rattler]

man i should think before i hit the post button. you forget the right to bare arms protects all your other freedoms. a gun has been the most effective means of defence for over 100 years.

Rattler