A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

[sappanama]

Originally Posted by gatorlaw71

If more guns everywhere are the solution to crime ...

... why isn't every airline passenger required to carry one

... why don't the Supreme Court justices, or any court anywhere, allow guns in their buildings

There has been 3 hijackings in 20 years, better be careful, I have an idea lets body search everyone cuz you know it happened 3/ 45,000,000 times.
I know 2 judges that carry under their robes, don't forget the bailiffs and others are packing

[wargunfan]

The Bill Of Rights is not a list of rights for the government. It is not a list of rights for groups or militias. It is a bulwark of freedom for the rights of individual Americans. The SCOTUS has reaffirmed the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. Any attempt by the federal government to abridge this right will be the beginning of an armed insurrection the likes of which this country has never seen and that includes the Civil War. Patriots will rightly see this as the exercise of tyranny; the very reason we keep arms in the first place. The fabric of the nation will be torn asunder and we will never recover. The federal government should be forewarned.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by sappanama

There has been 3 hijackings in 20 years, better be careful, I have an idea lets body search everyone cuz you know it happened 3/ 45,000,000 times.
I know 2 judges that carry under their robes, don't forget the bailiffs and others are packing

Don't forget to count the armed guards at the airports and the armed US Marshals aboard the planes. As for the bailiffs and judges, almost all courthouse have metal scanners and armed guards at the entrances.

[Minister_of_Information]

The context is important. I did bold the key points in case time is a factor.

[Lawdog88]

The Declaration of Independence confirms the interlocking thinking of the Founders that . . . ALL governments, including our own . . . when they become tyrannical and suppressive of the inalienable rights of mankind, MUST be overthrown.

Either gun or ballot box as a means, is OK. It is an organic and the highest expression of man's spirit moving towards freedom.

[AmericaFirst]

Originally Posted by chompalot

Here's an OP-ED by the conservative judge that sentenced the Tuscon mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner. What I find interesting about this piece is the fact that he calls for the confiscation of the assault rifles and high-capacity magazines that people already possess. In other words, he wants the assault rifle banned reimposed but this time with some teeth to it. I happen to agree with him, I just don't know how it could be done. I guessing we'd just have to impose massive fines on anybody who is found with an assault rifle or extended-magazine.





http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

They'll have to take my Uzi 9MM from my dead hands because I'm not giving it up.

[AmericaFirst]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You can not confiscate guns in this country. What exactly makes him a conservative judge, just the fact that he was appointed by George W. Bush?

Bush was anything but a conservative. Not surprised one of his judges believes this garbage.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by AmericaFirst

Bush was anything but a conservative. Not surprised one of his judges believes this garbage.

Apologies for the caps.

BUSH-APPOINTED JUDGES MOST CONSERVATIVE ON RECORD, NEW UH STUDY FINDS

Bush judicial appointees are significantly more conservative than even the very conservative voting record of jurists appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. in the realm of civil rights and liberties, said Robert Carp, professor of political science at UH. When it comes to these decisions, the Bush team is a full 5 percentage points more conservative than even the trial judges appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.

[g8orbill]

the data suggests that a ban on assault weapons will do little

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...t-weapons-ban/

[wargunfan]

An unarmed and defenseless populace is a necessary goal of those who want to install an oppressive, authoritarian regime in this country. The hysterical cries of the ignorant and uninformed for bans/confiscation of assault weapons are a convenient tool to be used by those who would rule by decree. We must never forget the words of the leftist Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. . . . Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." The crisis has arrived and will be exploited by the gun grabbers. Buy your weapons and ammunition now.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I am new to this thread, but what is an assault weapon?

An automatic weapon? Banned for decades?

A high capacity magazine? Already banned in several states.

What else?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by chompalot

You can't tell the future. Hopefully, Americans will wake up and rid itself of these tea partiers so that we can get something passed into law that will ban these type of weapons.

I am a member of our state tea party. Why do you wish to get rid of me? Is it because you think my views diverge from yours? Is it because you feel threatened by my views? Or do you wish to get rid of me just because you disagree with my views?

Now, how do you propose to get rid of me. Kill me? Lock me up? Ostracize me? How?

And why would you even want to do such a thing?


Why?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I am new to this thread, but what is an assault weapon?

An automatic weapon? Banned for decades?

A high capacity magazine? Already banned in several states.

What else?

A gun that looks scary.

The official definition from the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Note that these are all cosmetic, and have no bearing on the capability of the weapon (unless you actually have the grenade launcher or bayonet mounted).

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I am a member of our state tea party. Why do you wish to get rid of me? Is it because you think my views diverge from yours? Is it because you feel threatened by my views? Or do you wish to get rid of me just because you disagree with my views?

Now, how do you propose to get rid of me. Kill me? Lock me up? Ostracize me? How?

And why would you even want to do such a thing?

Why?

We already know after a century what it means when "get rid of" turns from exasperated complaint into policy.

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I am a member of our state tea party. Why do you wish to get rid of me? Is it because you think my views diverge from yours? Is it because you feel threatened by my views? Or do you wish to get rid of me just because you disagree with my views?

Now, how do you propose to get rid of me. Kill me? Lock me up? Ostracize me? How?

And why would you even want to do such a thing?


Why?

It's already happening. Their power is rapidly diminishing.

Day by day the Tea Party is becoming more and more unpopular in the eyes of the American people. The movement has been exposed as a bunch of uncompromising, absolutist and dogmatic extremists that are being controlled by a few billionaires. People are becoming more aware of just how detrimental it would be to our great nation if Tea Partiers were, somehow, able to achieve a majority in Congress or even worse--God forbid--the Presidency. Thankfully, though, there soon won't be much of a chance for any politician to win state-wide office as a Tea Party member. They are becoming irrelevant.

[MichiGator2002]

The Tea Party is the de facto 2nd party in the putative two party system, with Santa Claus statists on the left and their laughable counterparts among beltway Republicans. That is why the Orwellian, demagogic push that chomp is so ably demonstrating to cast them as eeeeeeevil.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by chompalot

It's already happening. Their power is rapidly diminishing.

Day by day the Tea Party is becoming more and more unpopular in the eyes of the American people. The movement has been exposed as a bunch of uncompromising, absolutist and dogmatic extremists that are being controlled by a few billionaires. People are becoming more aware of just how detrimental it would be to our great nation if Tea Partiers were, somehow, able to achieve a majority in Congress or even worse--God forbid--the Presidency. Thankfully, though, there soon won't be much of a chance for any politician to win state-wide office as a Tea Party member. They are becoming irrelevant.

Answer my questions, please. Show how the tea party views are dogmatic and extremist. Show how we are all controlled by a few billionaires. Tell us how you plan to get rid of us. Show us how tolerant you are to views that differ from yours.

Show us and tell us please.

[TexAg]

What nonsense. The point of the 2nd Amendment is not to prevent crime and it has nothing to do with hunting. The 2nd Amendment protects us against the tyranny of government. To oppose the right to own these weapons is blatantly in the face of the wishes of our framers, who wanted a well-armed citizenry because they had lived under the fist of tyranny. There is no denying that fact.

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Answer my questions, please. Show how the tea party views are dogmatic and extremist. Show how we are all controlled by a few billionaires. Tell us how you plan to get rid of us. Show us how tolerant you are to views that differ from yours.

Show us and tell us please.

That's what the media says about you mean and evil Tea Partiers...

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

You can only read the Second Amendment that way by flouting every ounce of precedent for the Bill of Rights in English law, as well as the arguments of both the Federalists and anti-Federalists, not to mention deliberate ignorance of the proposing remarks of James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment and much of the Constitution itself. As MichiGator suggests, it is just this sort of cavalier mendacity that affirms the truth that the need for the militia is timeless.

The opening clause of the Second Amendment when read without sophistry can only be perceived as a prefatory maxim, the timeless truth of that which is self evident to the authors, rather than a conditional statement. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is similarly perpetual. As the Bill of Rights is explicitly an enumeration of natural rights rather than an enactment, it can hardly be otherwise.

I note again that you have yet to appreciate the militia's inherent role as a check upon tyranny. The President may well be able to command the militia against a common enemy, but it is simply illogical to suppose that he could order the militia to oppress itself. And the founders quite openly intended it this way.

You also suggest yet again that it is ludicrous to suppose that a militia can oppose a state with a modern army. My retort is watch the news more, or pay better attention to it. Did Bautista crush Fidel? Why are we having so many problems in Afghanistan? How did we lose Vietnam?

Hyperbolic much (bolded text)? So my posting on TH is exactly what the framers had in mind when defining the militia?

Batista was overthrown over 50 years ago and didn't have the US military to command.

The Taliban has a small piece of the US military in it's face and indeed, if we were willing to stay there forever - 1/2 way around the world - they would continue to have no chance.