It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US gun owners get the shaft

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 10:37 PM
Gun-control senators cheer Bush
Feinstein, Schumer welcome president's stance on firearm ban

Posted: April 22, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty

A pair of U.S. senators noted for their avid support of gun control are praising President Bush for his backing of the continuation of a weapons ban the lawmakers pushed through Congress 10 years ago.

"[Sens.] Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which is set to expire in 2004," says an April 16 statement published on the California Democrat's website.

In a letter to Bush, the senators said, "As the original authors of the assault-weapons ban in the Senate and the House, we strongly believe that military-style assault weapons have no place on America's streets and should be banned.

"In 1994, we fought hard to win passage of the original ban, and shortly after Congress returns from the spring recess we plan to introduce legislation that would reauthorize it," the letter continued.

Feinstein and Schumer were responding to comments attributed to Bush by White House spokesman Scott McClellan. WorldNetDaily reported that McClellan, in responding April 13 to a question posed by Knight Ridder newspaper, said the president "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

To win more converts, ban supporters inserted a 10-year sunset provision into the original 1994 legislation. That means the law is set to expire in September 2004, just weeks before the general election. But Feinstein and Schumer said they planned to introduce new legislation to "reauthorize the ban" probably for good, critics believe.

According to Feinstein's statement, the new bill would "reauthorize the prohibition on manufacture, transfer and possession military-style assault weapons, while protecting hunting rifles and other firearms" and "close the clip-importation loophole, which prohibits the sale of domestically produced high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue to bring them into the country by the millions." The senators said Bush indicated his support for closing that loophole during the 2000 presidential election.

At the same time, the new bill would "preserve the right of police officers and other law-enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons."

"We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation," the senators said. "With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer."

Gun rights advocates are confused by Bush's stance.

"Why would George Bush want to help Democrats?" said Larry Pratt, executive director of the 300,000-member Gun Owners of America, based in Springfield, Va. "The issue, when it was opposed by most Republicans, cost Democrats the House in 1994 and the White House in 2000."

He also sees a domestic-security issue that is at stake. "Banning the homeland-security rifle is pure Washington, but anti-Constitution and anti-homeland security," Pratt said.

The White House repeatedly failed to respond to questions from WorldNetDaily over whether Bush would sign the Schumer-Feinstein bill should it make it to his desk.

But some lawmakers say gun owners should not have been surprised by the president's comments.

"President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue," said Rep. Ron Paul, in his weekly column posted online April 16.

Nevertheless, Paul wrote, Bush's stance could cost him dearly next year. "Given [the] trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration's position may well cost votes in 2004," he said.

Paul, a staunch gun-rights supporter, said the administration's position on so-called "assault weapons" while claiming it is gun-rights oriented is hypocritical.

In making his point, Paul quoted Georgetown University professor Robert Levy, who recently offered this comparison: "Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"

"Tortured interpretations of the Second Amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed," said Paul.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, gun-rights activists are working to overturn similar gun bans.

In Connecticut, gun owners and gun dealers filed suit last week in state Superior Court in a bid to have the state's 1993 "assault weapons" ban overturned, the Connecticut Post reported.

Plaintiffs, the paper said, claim the state's Department of Public Safety can't administer the law in a uniform manner. The suit says two separate buyers purchased the same rifle, but when they attempted to register them on successive days, one buyer was allowed to keep his while the other's was seized.

The paper reported that Ralph D. Sherman, a West Hartford lawyer, said last week that the suit is asking the court to void the regulations while ordering DPS Commissioner Arthur L. Spada to neither enforce them nor arrest anyone for possessing weapons previously deemed illegal.

Also, the suit seeks termination of any DPS databases tied to the gun ban.

"They are phony regulations," Sherman chairman of Gunsafe, a group of state firearms owners said. "The Department of Public Safety has changed its mind several times on what these regulations are supposed to be. It's a major challenge to an administrative agency that's not following correct procedure."

In February, legal scholars from The Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank, filed suit against the nation's capital, charging its gun-control restrictions were unconstitutional.

Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, and Gene Healy, senior editor, joined by two other D.C.-based attorneys, argued in their complaint that "the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun ... within the home."

However, they charged, officials in D.C. "enforce a set of laws [that] deprive individuals, including the plaintiffs, of this important right."

Other pundits decry what they see as gun-control laws that stretch the boundaries of reason.

Dave Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute, has criticized the city of Denver's efforts to criminalize squirt guns. And in January, New York City officials sought to toughen existing bans on toy guns, because, they say, toy guns are often used by criminals and have become a threat to police.

posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 10:42 PM
when are these fools going to learn that you can't control guns. educate people about the proper uses and reasons we have guns. not to kill. to gain large masses of deer meet in a short time with the most bullets possible!! but the gun is much like the sword in the past days of japan. swords were outlawed cos they were used to kill. any weaopon is that, a tool of death. that will forever be its purpose. maybe it's not right, but it's hard to do anything about it in this day and age.

posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 06:53 AM
Just an opinion, but to date the ONLY use I've seen for assault weapons were things like the massacre at Columbine High School.

You can't use 'em for hunting... I suppose you can use them for lots of noise on the gun range... but it's not something you'd use in "defending your home" (I see 2-4 reports daily of "defending the home" in the newspaper -- only somehow the "home" seems to be kids killing each other over sneakers or husbands shooting wives or motorist shootouts or robberies or shootouts over drug deals.)

Frankly, I don't think the public needs to have them (you'll notice that the ones in Iraq with them couldn't do that much against our armies, so "defending the country" is a poor rationale.)

Your mileage may vary.

posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 09:51 AM
But Byrd, the Columbine shooters used a 9mm and shotguns, they also had knives and bombs.

And these laws didn't stop those two madmen in CA w/ Ak's that shot the town up after a botched bank robbery in 1997.

I can't believe Bush would do this

posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 10:00 AM
I don't want an assault weapon. As long as I can keep my shotgun, deer rifle, and .22...I'll be happy. If they take those away, I will personally attempt to overthrow the government.(no joke) And there are many who would help me.

But this is only the begginning. They are going to start slow, with things that we don't 'need'. Then they work their way down, and *bam*, no more guns. Total police state, NWO in power. As long as I'm alive, there will always be at least some resistance.

Sticks and stones may break their bones, but guns will blow their head off.

Sorry if anyone takes offense to this, I am really pissed off right now. But I feel that I'm justified.

posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 03:24 PM
the assault weapons that are on the street, are not there from gun shops....

They are from the backs of vans...

Such a ban is only going to keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens...not criminals...period.

The whole reason behind the Right to Bear Arms isn't to use against criminals, but so that there is a buffer to the government....not like me having an M16 is going to keep Big Brother from taking away my rights...but it does at least force it to be taken into consideration...and less likely to occur....

posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 03:28 PM
man now i gotta keep my tech 9, and mack 10 shelved for another 10 yrs. this sucks.


posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 03:37 PM
A government that fears its citizens is the best government. By taking away guns then the government will have no fear of us. Just like Joe said, total police state.

Joe, I'm right there with you buddy. As soon as I get the money to arm myself I will. And as long as people like us are alive, there will be resistance.

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 02:35 PM
I agree with Gazrok, the ability to keep and bear arms, same as the military has, is simply to ensure that the government doesnt get out of control.

This is the biggest fear of the Cabal, is a popular uprising.

This is one more link in the sausage game.... take a little, make sure its not enough to fight over...

Also, it has been well proven that gun control doesnt do a single thing to stop crime, and in fact states and cities with strict gun control has much steeper rates of crime.

I always watch for the "no guns allowed" sign in businesses where I go... I tend to avoid these places, simply because such signs are essentially advertisments to bandits that "we're not armed, so please come rob us".

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 02:42 PM
link I said. We don't need assault rifles. Regular deer rifles, shotguns, and small game guns are necissary for survival. I don't keep guns in my house to protect against burglars or murderers, I keep them so I can hunt.

Although, I don't really have a problem with people breaking into my house, so I don't know.

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 10:57 PM
It sad how much US society has deteriated. The fact that people think that assualt weapons are essential to self protection is ridiculous.
All it is,is boys toys.

All I can say in Australia, since the gun laws, gun related murder has gone right down, almost non-existent as a matter of fact.

The reason why gun laws will never work in the US is because there are already 250 million guns floating around. As well ( I'm not sure ) I don't think you have to hand in your guns in the US.

There is of course the whole attitude of many americans thinking that a gun will make them safe.

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 11:07 PM
gun laws..........hmmmmmmmmmmmm

my husband had to give in his guns.....22...rifle.?( i think)
Also some others......slug guns???

the black market for these now are in's not going to stop someone from killing or getting what they want .....if that's what their intentions it???

I don't agree with the Gun my dad and my husband go hunting.......not using it as a sport........

There are people getting killed with knives, and im sure many other ''devices''......if there's a will there's a way........ you can't ban knives........or ''Letter openers'' or even '''paper cutters..........

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 11:14 PM
well Helen, Do you think the DC sniper would have been able to kill as many poeple with a knife ?

Guns allow pepole o kill close up ar at long range with deadly accuracy, that is what makies them dangerous in civilian hands.

Besides psychogically it is alot easier to kill with a gun than any other weapon.

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 02:12 PM
a killer will kill someone whether he/she has a gun, knife, or spoon. A gun simply makes it easier. I agree though that letting the people keep their guns will keep the government in check, and hopefully it wont come to it when they try to take them away.

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 02:21 PM


posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 02:29 PM
That site proves most of what was said by rosie O'donnell and other gun-control advocates FALSE.

Guns are just a responsible for killing people, as the spoon is for making Rosie fat!

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 02:31 PM
So guns don't kill people, it's just that certain noise they make?

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by jackass
So guns don't kill people, it's just that certain noise they make?

I'd didn't say that, and that site doesn't either. But it is proven in places with less gun controll, there is less crime. The criminal has a fear of being shot by a law-abiding citizen packing protection.

[Edited on 26-4-2003 by mouko_ryuu]

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 02:39 PM

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by a redneck idiot

I'd didn't say that, and that site doesn't either. But it is proven in places with less gun controll, there is less crime. The criminal has a fear of being shot by a law-abiding citizen packing protection.

[Edited on 26-4-2003 by a redneck idiot]

I didn't go to the site, your ALL CAPS assault was more than enough for me to avoid it. It was an attempt at humor. As for guns, a hand gun isnt made or anything else than to really kill humans, I own guns, I think we should be able to always bear arms. How about you take your little attitude and shove it up your arse. Have a nice day.

[Edited on 26-4-2003 by Lysergic]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in