Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
Anonymous
|
 Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons 
#1533052 - 05/09/03 02:23 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I mentioned this to my fellow gun lovers last year. Since it is in the New York Times I thought I'd bring it up.
"Irking N.R.A. (and violating his oath), Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons
The New York Times ^ | May 7 | ERIC LICHTBLAU
President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch
allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant
pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic
assault weapons.
At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to
continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and
possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it,
and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even
some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective
because of its loopholes.
Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of
the current law — a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and
left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.
"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just
unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G.
Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the
weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."
Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a
bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is
outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign
promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president
has claimed the middle road — supporting an extension of the current ban but not
endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw
many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate
to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.
Mr. Bush's position "cuts against the N.R.A.'s position," said Michael Franc,
vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation,
"and it will put the president — for one of the first times since he signed the
campaign finance reform bill — at odds with his own political base."
"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be
fatal," Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America,
considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004.
The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot.
When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official
boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so "unbelievably
friendly" that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The
N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush
administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the
current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department
under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the
gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and
initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A.
But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the
president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.
"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott
McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what
he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban
was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was
reasonable."
The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a
spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the
weapons ban, said, "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right
thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number
three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular
measure."
The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House, even though
it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters
and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles.
Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the
defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities,
the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it
so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's
position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that
level, but in Congress," he said.
A bill will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Democrat of California, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, that
would extend the ban for 10 years in much the same form it exists today. House
Democrats expect to introduce a toughened version of the bill next week. That
version, rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky, would
significantly expand the class of banned weapons.
Mr. Schumer said he believed Mr. Bush's support could be critical in what he
predicted would be a hard-fought campaign to renew the assault-weapons measure,
which bans 19 types of firearms and others that meet certain criteria.
"We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to
get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure
of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism."
Senate Democrats ultimately decided that a stronger version of the ban would not
pass muster with the White House and thus stood little chance of gaining
passage, officials said. As a result, the Senate proposal will not specifically
ban the Bushmaster rifle type that was used in last year's Washington-area
sniper attacks. The House version would, because it includes a broader
definition of an assault rifle, officials said.
"I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the
Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the
bill, and important to that is the president's support."
Mr. Schumer said that even with the White House's public support, "I am worried
that the anti-gun-control forces in the administration will conspire to kill
this measure in the dead of night without a vote."
He noted that Mr. Ashcroft gave a noncommittal response two months ago when he
was asked before the Senate several times whether he would support the
reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban.
Mr. Ashcroft said Justice Department studies had found that the ban's impact on
gun violence was "uncertain," and he said more study was needed.
The question of the gun ban's impact over the last nine years will be a crucial
point of debate.
A report due to be released soon by the Violence Policy Center — a liberal
Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban — examined the killings
of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five
were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the
1994 ban.
"Unfortunately, the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the
ban," Kristen Rand, the group's legislative director, said. "Assault weapons
remain a huge public safety problem."
Gun-rights groups insist that the assault-weapons ban has had little or no
impact in fighting crime, and they maintain that their opponents are wrong to
depict high-powered rifles as the weapon of choice for gangs and rampage
killers.
"None of these weapons are used for crimes, and the Democrats know that," Mr.
Norquist said.
For many gun owners, the issue is visceral, and Mr. Bush's stance has made the
debate more emotional.
"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office,
and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya,
an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com.""
Of course the reason the senate Democrats are doing this is because they are desperate to destroy the President. This was a bad move on their part. The ban expires next year and it would have been better to wait until closer to the election and let the President destroy himself.
Man, what are these guys smoking? I can't believe they are that stupid politically.
Cheers,
|
 yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
 Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1533075 - 05/09/03 02:32 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
That's too bad. I'm sure you could have used a lot of those semi-automatics for hunting and stuff.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: yelimS]
#1533139 - 05/09/03 02:56 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
No way! I'm not into killing animals. Just take their pictures if you want to hunt.
Them guns is for killin' people!
--------------------
|
zeronio
Stranger
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 10 months, 14 days
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#1533172 - 05/09/03 03:09 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
And for defending yourself from the government!
|
Ellis Dee
Archangel
Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 13,093
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 2 months, 28 days
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1533196 - 05/09/03 03:12 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This is why Bush didn't get my vote in 2000. He made his position on this clear before he was elected, during his campaign. Since Trent Lott was replaced by that cursed liberal after his little racial comment we have little hope of this being kiled in the senate. Hopefully we will get this killed in committee in the house before it ever gets to Bush's desk for the SOB to sign.
--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1533289 - 05/09/03 03:31 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
They're trying to disarm america because they're trying to turn us into a fascist police state and the less guns we have to fight back, the more power they have. There's going to be a revolution. We have to overthrow the government before they start implanting microchips into the population to control us. They already put chemicals in the air to control us. They're called chemtrails.
Edited by Anonymous (05/09/03 03:32 AM)
|
m0rb
mushroom mobster
Registered: 05/07/03
Posts: 184
Loc: New England
Last seen: 13 years, 16 days
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1533367 - 05/09/03 03:50 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm with Jonny on this one. We once HAD the right to bare arms, but little by little they are taking that right away from us.
Pretty soon the 2nd will be, ...The right to bare limited arms.
I'm not saying fully-automatic machine guns should be available to the general population, but we are talking about SEMI-AUTOMATICs here.
Some people hear semi-automatic, and immediately think it is a god damn machine gun! haha! 
Hand guns are semi-automatics people... should we ban those too? I can just see it now, some ass is trying to break into my house and before you know it, he is beating me with a baseball bat because im try to load a round into my bolt-action rifle!
-m0rb-
--------------------
"The business of America is business," - Calvin Coolidge
|
 Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper
Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,780
Loc: Swamp
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1533408 - 05/09/03 04:04 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
So what if someone were to have had been in the military? Are they immune to this?
--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
|
zeronio
Stranger
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 10 months, 14 days
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: Ellis Dee]
#1533424 - 05/09/03 04:08 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What about chemical & biological weapons. Should their possesion be legal too?
Isn't that also a violation of the right to have arms?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: m0rb]
#1533973 - 05/09/03 09:58 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Pretty soon the 2nd will be, ...The right to bare limited arms.
eh... it already is. in most major cities, you're not even allowed to carry a gun anymore.
I'm not saying fully-automatic machine guns should be available to the general population, but we are talking about SEMI-AUTOMATICs here.
yep. i read somewhere that assault rifles are responsible for like 2% of the firearms deaths each year. hmm...
Hand guns are semi-automatics people... should we ban those too?
there are alot of naive people out there that will say 'yes'.
I can just see it now, some ass is trying to break into my house and before you know it, he is beating me with a baseball bat because im try to load a round into my bolt-action rifle!
or shoot you with the handgun he picked up off the black market.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1533999 - 05/09/03 10:25 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The issue for me is that the Pro-Gun crowd for the most part voted for Bush. I reminded them when they did that he would renew the Assault Ban in 2004 when it's sunset clause comes up. At least we had a sunset clause.
The ban is silly. My 30 year old .22 rifle holds 14 bullets in its tube. By the definition of the Ban it is an Assault rifle. I used it when I was a boy to shoot the animals I caught in my traps when I was trapping for fur.
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1534001 - 05/09/03 10:27 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
eh... it already is. in most major cities, you're not even allowed to carry a gun anymore.
 And that's bad? We're not even allowed to carry softguns.
there are alot of naive people out there that will say 'yes'.
And a lot of paranoid people out there who lock themselves into their basements with their semiautomatics to be safe from burglars and rapists. FEAR! FEAR! THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!
I can just see it now, some ass is trying to break into my house and before you know it, he is beating me with a baseball bat because im try to load a round into my bolt-action rifle!
or shoot you with the handgun he picked up off the black market.
Keeping handguns for 'potection'. Doesn't these guns kill more family members than burglars each year? Paranoid teddybears. Keep a bat handy if you can't sleep at night.
I know you guntotters don't like bowling for columbine, but the guy has a point, damnit! More people are killed in the US than any other country, and at the same time, it has the most paranoid population. Guns, except for hunting rifles are very rare here in Norway, I don't even know if we're allowed to have them, and every time there's a murder, it's front page news. We had 49 murders and 68 atempted in 2000, with a population of 4.5 million.
Edited by yelimS (05/09/03 11:00 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons *DELETED* [Re: yelimS]
#1534006 - 05/09/03 10:29 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by Mr_Mushrooms
|
zeronio
Stranger
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 10 months, 14 days
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1534015 - 05/09/03 10:34 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
eh... it already is. in most major cities, you're not even allowed to carry a gun anymore.
That's horrible. Punks can walk around with baseball bats and kill innocent people who can't defend themselves with guns anymore. That makes a walk from your house to a nearby store almost a suicide. 
What about biological weapons?
Consider this scenario. Some ass breaks into my house and my AK-47 jams - I'm dead. But I could at least release my anthrax spores before I die to kill also the intruder.
LOL
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1534023 - 05/09/03 10:36 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, that might have been a little over the line. It's not intended as a flame, I just hate when people think hell is around the corner all the time, and do more harm to protect themselves than what they try to protect themselves for, could have done.
Thanks for asking before you edited it out or banned me or whatever you do  I'll try to be nicer.
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: yelimS]
#1534034 - 05/09/03 10:40 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks Bud.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: yelimS]
#1534044 - 05/09/03 10:42 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
And that's bad? We're not even allowed to carry softguns.
yes.
And a lot of paranoid people out there who lock themselves into their basements with their semiautomatics to be safe from burglars and rapists. FEAR! FEAR! THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!
mmmm... try again. a semi-automatic means you can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. this includes virtually all handguns and many rifles. i don't think many people like to lock themselves in the basement, they just like to keep a handgun locked in their nightstand. why shouldn't people have a right to defend themselves? maybe you think it's paranoid. in that case, i suggest that you not buy a gun.
Keeping handguns for 'potection'. Doesn't these guns kill more family members than burglars each year? Paranoid fuckers. Keep a bat handy if you can't sleep at night.
hmm... doesn't they? i'm not sure...
I know you guntotters don't like bowling for columbine, but the guy has a point, damnit! More people are killed in the US than any other country, and at the same time, it has the most paranoid population.
aahhhhhh... theeeeere we go... you're a subscriber to micheal moore's 'bowling for columbine' eh? now it makes sense.
his 'point' ignores the premise that this is caused more by social factors than the availability of guns.
every time there's a murder, it's front page news. We had 49 murders and 68 atempted in 2000, with a population of 4.5 million.
it ain't like that here.
regardless... most people keep assault rifles because they're fun to shoot... at targets, and assault rifles are responsible for about 2% or so of our gun deaths here. it's typically not the sort of weapon one uses in a murder.
it's just a case of the government being afraid to let people have 'military style' arms.
and stupid people who don't know what 'assault rifle' means, but know and fear the word 'assault' support this crap without having any idea what it means.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: zeronio]
#1534052 - 05/09/03 10:45 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
did i say that people should be allowed to keep anthrax. sorry if i came across like i was trying to imply that there should be no restrictions on weapons. that's not at all what i meant.
i do think however, that aside from places like courthouses, airplanes, and private buildings that don't allow it, a person never convicted of a violent crime should have every right to carry a handgun with them.
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: ]
#1534055 - 05/09/03 10:45 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
np. But do you have any comments to anything else I wrote? Because I'm quite curious how you guys defend being paranoid. (Still not a flame, if I admit being terribly naive, I guess it's fair to call others paranoid  )
zeronio: great having more naive europeans in this debate! Take care, don't get killed on the street.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons [Re: yelimS]
#1534067 - 05/09/03 10:52 AM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Instead of speaking on the argument I will rely on my personal experience.
I live in a dangerous neighborhood. I keep guns in my home to protect myself and my wife. People are killed violently all the time in my town. What would you have my wife do if someone broke in and tried to rape her while I wasn't there to protect her? (there have been plenty of rapes in my town as well)
I am not paranoid, I am just cautious. I also wear a seatbelt for the same reason. It is protection. It's just common sense.
Cheers,
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
2,504 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
| | |
|
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
