Bush is in support of banning assault weapons? They don't even know the true definition of an assault weapon! This is not good gentlemen. I thought Bush was pro-gun? Saying that Bush and Ashcroft support the banning of these "weapons of war" in the context of the article kind of rebuts what the title says doesn't it? Or did I mis-read something?
__________________
There's no one more thankful to sit at the table, than the one who best remembers hunger's pain.
This is from the fine folks who brought you this other stellar decision. See the below link, the response were just too good to paraphrase so I won't even try.
I love this quote from that article:
"It is important to remember that Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before Congress that he, like President Bush, supports banning assault weapons. If this ruling is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Attorney General Ashcroft, if asked, will be expected to stand by his sworn word."
I remember seeing this and Ashcroft was talking about weapons of mass destruction, like bombs, grenades, nuclear missles, and the like that was on the open black market for terrorists to buy and use. He said he was not sure if he would repeal the AWB of 1994, but it was a possibility.
This court is so controversial, I wouldn't even worry at all. Their decisions have notoriously been overturned by the Supreme Court. They are just a bunch of Frankenstein's and Boxers' cronies. Remember, people, this is the court that heard arguments for banning the Pledge of Allegiance. If I remember correctly, they also had a record of 3 of their rulings overturned by the Supreme Court in one day! Not too good, if you ask me....
__________________
If you don't like cops, call your local crackhead for help next time!
Th No right to bear arms part scares the heck out of me....
"SAN FRANCISCO(AP) - A federal appeals court unanimously upheld California's ban on assault weapons Thursday, saying individuals had no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. "
I just saw Stewarts' link and they were the ones who had 3 decisions overturned in one day.
Kinda sad when a court of that stature is allowed to decide what is right and wrong. The judges need to be dis-barred and an investigation done on every one of them. But, that's logical, so it'll never happen....
__________________
If you don't like cops, call your local crackhead for help next time!
a press release from the anti-gun Violence Policy Center. so there will be distortions, and biased reporting.this one court is way, way left, in its decisions, and they only do this so it will get to the Supreme Court, so they look good to their lib/friends.
to me Bush is taking care of the rest of the world while his own country is falling apart. all i hear is we need to fight this country and we need to fight that country .but at the rate we are going the terrorist will just sit back and watch us go down on our own
I seen on the tv that bush said he knows where saddams bombs are and he is just waiting for saddam to lie and say he doesn't have them.then he will show the un where they are.if he does know where that why not send the un agents to the spot so they can find them. i think he just wants war period!! what happend to bin laden ?? we never hear nuthing about him anymore other than he has sent another message. to me we should take care of one problem at a time.now i know there are alot of BUSH fans in here buti don't think he is doing sush a good job. the one thing he promised was to get the person responsible for sept 11 . and he hasn't done it yet. to me bin laden has a better chance of falling off his camel and breaking his neck then he has of a US soldier shooting him. now this was just an opinion on my part but to me Bush isn't doing what he said he would do. he seems to shift the attention to other things to cover up the fact that he just can't find ole laden and the economy is in bad shape. take care of the USA first all the rest come later.to me there is way to much talk of war . what ever happend to sending in a few special ops teams to take out these people instead a a few thousand.
sorry if i got a few of you wired up but i'm just not happy with Bush's way of handling things . i would be alot more happy if he would take care of bin laden first after all he is the greatest threat to the USA not saddam. and he is the one who was behind the attacks on Sept. 11 .
so since the economy, was good under Klinton, and he and the demonrats take responsibility for it. what did he do to make the economy perk??? what was it that he had a lock on that Bush 43 doesn't ??? the secret should be public knowledge.
Osamin is probably a DNA splat somewhere. if he is still alive, he's well hidden, and protected by his followers, they won't give him up.
but you are right a war in the Middle East is not neccessary. a couple of well placed nukes will fix that!!!
If you want to talk about the implications this makes for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, just remember:
1) This is a liberal Federal Appeals Court
2) The ruling was on a California state law... not a federal law
3) The 1994 Crime Bill sunsets on 9/13/04... in other words it goes away unless both Houses of Congress draft new legislation or re-ratify the old law. (With Tom Delay as House Majority Leader, I feel better than I did in 1994 with Gephart was Majority Leader).
4) Ashcroft only pledged to uphold the law as it was written... if the law goes away by sunset provision and is not re-enacted, it becomes a moot point.
5) Bush was pushed into a campaign position in 2000 of supporting the 1994 Crime Bill. If the law goes away and remains bottled in committee, it basically doesn't involve him. The only thing I see him re-instating is his father's 1989 assault weapons Import Ban, which was an executive order made into a law by the 1994 Crime Bill. That would basically keep imports out and with the sunsetting of the 1994 Crime Bill, allow domestic manufacturers to produce these rifles...(with imported parts?)
6) President Bush's support of the 1994 Crime Bill does not mean he supports the firearms provisions entirely. I predict that if a Crime Bill gets out of committee, it will be a Republican bill with little or no firearms provisions, or at least, without the high-capacity magazine ban. You see, ANY Crime Bill put forth would have a different political intention behind it, namely for Republicans... not a re-enacting of a law that aids Democrats. The craftsmen of the 1994 Crime Bill were Feinstein and then House member, Shumer. A Republican bill would not have these same sponsers. A word of caution: watch Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary committee, he is a liberal, Democrat-approval-seeking on firearms issues, enemy of the 2nd Amendment. I would hope that Delay's leadership would keep him in line as well as the rest of the Republican Hiouse members.
Before sept 11, Bush popularity at the polls was lower than 35%, after sept 11 everyone closed ranks, even the democrats to fight against terrorism (which had to be done at the time).
Then the taliban went down and war in Afghanistan ended without bin laden being caught, so Mr. Bush popularity went down again. In response to this, he had to get a new enemy to try to get everyone behind him again but this time looks like he's picking a fight with anyone to get into the war bandwagon.
I think that Saddam is a monster that has to be taken out but why Bush senior didn't finish the job?
If the Iraqis want to be strangled to death by this sucker, then it's their God given right to have what they want!!!
If they want help to get rid of Saddam, then they should shout it out loud and I believe that the whole world will help them!!!
Mr. Bush should be taking care of the homeland and not imposing the US CITIZENS laws that take away the rights given in the constitution, all in the name of national security.
Mr. President: If you finally decide to go into Irak, then don't do the same that your father did and please finish the job or you'll look like a liar without a real cause!!!
I think it's all a crock,we should get rid of all the gun laws inacted after 1988!
As far as Bin Laden goes we should get him and get him good ASAP!
As far as Iraq goes,we should stay out of it unless he attacks us or our interests.If he attacks others I think they shoud defend themselves and stop whining after our money and muscle.Some of them are so arrogent they remind me of a little faggot in a school yard telling the other kids how bad he is and daring them to do something about it while his big brother stands behind him backing him up.What good does it do us to be the big brother if all we gain is the hatred of all those kids?Our little brothers take us for granted and I think it is high time this practice stopped!
There,I have said my piece and I'll stand by it!
RAVE:nod:
__________________
USAF 62-66 E-4
Resident Curmudgeon
We have been and still are being sold out.
Bin Ladin was supposed to be our main concern as he attacked us directly.Unfortunitly he escaped and the band must play on so now we are shifting our rightious wrath from our enemy to a secondary possible future threat while our main enemy is still running the show!I had hoped for better!
__________________
USAF 62-66 E-4
Resident Curmudgeon
We have been and still are being sold out.
THE LINK IS TO............ 
