Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Jerry Brown and the BMG "Assault Rifle"
Posted by: Dale Franks on Wednesday, October 18, 2006

One of the most irksome political commercials running here in California, is one from former Governor, Jerry Brown (Or as he was known while governor, "Governor Moonbeam"). Gov. Brown is now running for Attorney General against Republican Chuck Poochigian.

In this ad, a police captain appears. He isn't wearing a badge on his uniform, and his agency patch has been blacked out with electrical tape—no doubt as a requirement of his department. Captain Cop proceeds to hold up a .50 caliber round, and decry the horrific "fifty caliber assault rifle" that fires it.

The .50 cal. BMG is not, in any way, shape or form, an "assault rifle". It's a sniper rifle. But "assault rifle" sounds so scary and mean, because it used to, you know, assault stuff.

In a state of high dudgeon, Captain Cop then barks at us that this horrific cop-killing bullet can go through two cars, and still kill you. Therefore, we need to be sure we keep these horrific weapons off the street, before more cops are killed.

Now, I don't know how things are in your part of the US, but most criminal out here don't put down $3,000 to buy a 20-pound rifle to lug around. And, as it happens, no police officers have actually been killed by the .50 cal. BMG. Although, in 1995—eleven years ago—a BMG armed whackjob did have a stand-off with the cops, during which he did fire a round that went through two cars. Oh, and that wasn't even in California. It was in Colorado.

But the BMG is such a hated firearm by California police that they finally managed to get AB50 through the Lej, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed it into law, making the BMG illegal in California.

(Digression: Here's an odd sidelight of that law. It doesn't name the BMG specifically. It just bans .50 cal. rifles. So, overnight, all of the .50 caliber, muzzle-loading, black powder rifles in the state became illegal as well. A .54 caliber black-power muzzle loader is still legal, though.)

Anyway, Captain Cop then goes on to inform us that Chuck Poochigian must hate cops and want them to die because he opposed the banning of the BMG rifle. Jerry Brown, of course, thinks AB50 was a keeno idea!

Huh. Well, if I had any doubt about voting for Poochy before, I'm certainly willing to support him now.

Oh, and before you ask, no, I don't particularly care of the police are fearful of the BMG or not. It's already illegal to own a huge number of semi-automatic firearms that are perfectly legal int he rest of the US. And even for those that are still legal, no weapon can have a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds. For cripes sake, you can't even buy a knife with a double-edged blade in California. We've gone more than far enough to keep the police safe. If they think their job is too dangerous, then, well, they can always quit, and find another line of work. I did.

The primary concern of a free society isn't to make the cops comfortable. It is to preserve the individual rights of the citizens. Let me tell, you, the Vopos in East Germany were pretty darned relaxed cops, but that wasn't a society I'm interested in emulating. Frankly, I want the government and its agents, including police officers, to live in constant fear of the citizenry.

A society where that kind of fear obtains is far superior to the reverse. I've seen those societies, and I didn't much like 'em.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Frankly, I want the government and its agents, including police officers, to live in constant fear of the citizenry.
Just a bit over the top... but I agree with the underlying sentiment.
A society where that kind of fear obtains is far superior to the reverse. I’ve seen those societies, and I didn’t much like ’em.
But visions of jackbooted stormtroopers are much more significant than real Soviet police threatening to "take you away" because you took a photo of a passed out drunk on the streets of Kiev.


 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Say ’gun’ to a liberal and watch them run like roaches in the night. When Peloser gets the speakers post, gun control is her game, count on it.
 
Written By: bill
URL: http://
They’re gonna take the guns!!!

I agree that California, and a few other cities and states have gone too far with gun laws, but states can regulate firearms. I have a problem when the fed regulates firearms.

Still, I find it entertaining that some are considering voting against Dem’s because of number 2. While I like the symmetry of the idea that number 2 protects the other 9, that doesn’t seem to be going very well right now as 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 have all been weakened by the R’s, or least by the top R.

Number 2 didn’t do anything to stop this.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Say ’gun’ to a liberal and watch them run like roaches in the night.
I’m a liberal.

Saying "gun" doesn’t bother me a bit.

Another myth debunked.

So the false premise casts serious doubt on your scare tactic of Pelosi "going after the guns". She did receive an F rating from the NRA, but I think Dem’s realize that as an issue, gun control is a non-starter. It is just too vague and as a wedge it creates as much or more opposition (and usually more passionate) than it adds supporters. You saw what the Dem’s did over the sunsetting of the assault rifle ban... nothing. They could have made a lot of noise and chose not to. Mnay people believe that the original passage of the assault rifle ban in 1994 was a significant contributory factor in the Republican takeover in the elections that year. Harry Reid receives a B rating from the NRA and is consider an opponent of gun control, though in differnet years they have rated him significantly lower. Of course many of the issues that the NRA considers in their rating have nothing to do with the right to bear, but rather the right to manufacture and sell without liability. That seems to be more of a tort issue rather than a Second Amendment issue.

My favorite gun is my Ruger Vaquero SAA with a 7.5" barrel. Only six shots, but being that it is a .45 and I am an deadly under 20 feet, unless I am being attacked by a baseball team, it’ll do the job. Of course it’s HUGE and not as easy to carry as say, a Beretta 9mm, but I just like the gun.

I just love the Wild West feel of it. One of these days I am going to buy an old Colt SAA just to have the original.

Cap



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The .50 cal. BMG is not, in any way, shape or form, an "assault rifle".
True, but then again, "assault" weapons aren’t really "assault rifles," either - except in the sense that California law says they are.
(Digression: Here’s an odd sidelight of that law. It doesn’t name the BMG specifically. It just bans .50 cal. rifles. So, overnight, all of the .50 caliber, muzzle-loading, black powder rifles in the state became illegal as well. A .54 caliber black-power muzzle loader is still legal, though.)
Wrong. The operative phrases in the perfectly-numbered bill, Ass. Bill 50, are ".50 BMG rifle" and ".50 BMG cartridge," defined in Penal Code Section 12278 as follows:
(a) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.

(b) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG cartridge" means a cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center fire rifle and that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the tip of the bullet.
(2) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and including, .511 inch.
(3) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to, and including, .804 inch.
(4) The cartridge case length is 3.91 inches.

(c) A ".50 BMG rifle" does not include any "antique firearm," nor any curio or relic as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(d) As used in this section, "antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.
Note the definition of ".50 BMG" is so specific that it can be easily cirvumented by designing a new caliber - ".50 Non-BMG," if you will - that consists of the same exact cartridge, only a little longer or shorter. At the time Ass. Bill 50 was passed, there was some talk of gun manufacturers doing just that. I assume from your post that they haven’t, at least not yet.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Captain Sarcastic:
While I like the symmetry of the idea that number 2 protects the other 9, that doesn’t seem to be going very well right now as 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 have all been weakened by the R’s, or least by the top R.
If this statement was an example of your sarcasm, well done; you are a captain indeed, at least. Otherwise, if you really think the First Amendment is primarily under attack by Republicans, you might want to look at the vote count on McCain-Feingold, along with the ideological breakdown of the majority vs. dissent (neither of which included any Bush appointees BTW) in the disgraceful Supreme Court decision that upheld it. Sure, Bush was a chode to sign that bill, but it’s not as though any Democrat would have vetoed it. Ditto for the Fifth Amendment, which was utterly eradicated in Kelo, again with no Bush appointees on the court, with all conservatives voting to enforce the takings clause while all liberals and one moderate voted to eradicate it. Yup, that’s the top Republican’s fault, all right. Tenth Amendment? Basically the same: Scalia and Kennedy have a so-so record in enforcing it, Rehnquist and Thomas were better, and all four liberals have been consistently awful. As for the Ninth, you can allege a violation of that just as soon as you can show WTF it means and what laws will or won’t violate it.

My favorite example of your (unintended) sarcasm is your reference to the Third Amendment. Have soldiers been turning up in your living room lately?
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
June 30, 2003

Chairman, Public Safety Committee
State of California
Sen. Bruce McPherson


Via: Fax (916) 445-4688

Dear Senator McPherson,

United States defense contractors such as Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., Murfreesboro, TN USA rely on orders from the US Military as a primary source of income but this government income for most contractors is only part of the necessary income for long term survival. Commercial or civilian product sales are also a main source of income that makes payroll and for good working conditions for their employees. We must support these defense contractors in both peace and war and allow them to operate, market and sell their products under the rules, regulations and law of the Federal Government. There is a balance of customers among defense contractors that is necessary for sound, long term business and by eliminating commercial sales in California this balance is disrupted. To vote against .50 cal rifles puts jobs of your constituents as risk, the lives of your police at risk, and in the end the safety of the State of California at risk. Are you willing to jeopardize this?

The defense industrial base in America is at risk of being unable to fully support our country in time of need without adequate opportunity for commercial sales of various products. In the Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc situation the civilian legal Barrett .50 cal rifle is at risk in the state of California. The attempt to ban a legal firearm not only violates the basic principals of the US Constitution but sets a precedence that endangers many vital defense contractors. In the Barrett case it also endangers California law enforcement agencies from having a proven and important tool in the fight against terrorism.

* W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate of the US Army wrote: "The M82A1 Barrett... are manifestations of the important historic cooperation played by private citizens and small business in the United States in the development of weapons and munitions necessary for the US Armed Forces to perform their mission to protect the national security interests of the United States by fighting and winning, with as few friendly casualties as possible." This statement sums up the vital role both government and commercial business play in the sound business practices of various defense contractors of which Barrett is one.

The Barrett .50 cal rifle was ascertained by the troops on the front lines in Iraq as the best performing small arm and they have the private defense contractor to thank for that weapon. Ban .50 cal rifles in California and you take this tool from your police also. The war on terror is not over! The Barrett .50 cal rifle has been in the hands of competitive shooters, hunters, and collectors for over 20 years and is a mainstay of the long range competitive shooters matches. It also serves on Police SWAT teams as the primary long range anti-sniper weapon.

It is the Barrett position that we choose not to support in anyway state or local governments who are against the US Constitution and the safety and security of this nation. If California were to ban the sale of the Barrett .50 cal rifle we will stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to all State Law Enforcement agencies of the state of California immediately and ask all small arms manufactures to consider similar action. Re-classify the .50 cal rifle and you align yourself and the State of California as being part of the very terrorists who are attempting to destroy this great nation of ours.

Please vote against banning or re-classifying .50 cal rifles.

Respectively,

Ronnie G. Barrett
President
Barrett Firearms Mfg., Inc.
Murfreesboro, TN USA

 
Written By: JamesT
URL: http://
Chief William J. Bratton
Los Angeles Police Department
150 North Los Angeles Street


Re: LAPD 82A Rifle, Serial No. 1186


Point of Contact: Jim Moody
213 485 4061
Dear Chief Bratton,

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation’s armed forces.

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful" rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States .

The VPC’s most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002 the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote.

Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to bar ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city’s representatives in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels.

At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82AI in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an "assault weapon." This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day.

Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed.

Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Amory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now.

When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department’s position on this issue.

Sincerely,
BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.


Ronnie Barrett
President



Since then, Barrett has refused to service any of its rifles in use by California law enforcement.
 
Written By: JamesT
URL: http://
"I’m a liberal.

Saying "gun" doesn’t bother me a bit.

Another myth debunked."

Are you an army of one? Your statistical inference is lousy.

***************

The police use 50 cal. sniper rifles? I think that is a bit of overkill.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
A .54 caliber black-power muzzle loader
I guess that would be the weapon of choice for the Black Panthers, eh? ;)
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
My favorite example of your (unintended) sarcasm is your reference to the Third Amendment. Have soldiers been turning up in your living room lately?
Oops, silly typo, I meant to exclude 3 and include 4.

We’re pretty safe from 3 being weakened, so far.

If you believe that Bush is protecting rights, and the Dem’s are weakening them, I suppose your right to believe that is protected. You have the right to be wrong.

Government in general, D and R, tends to take rights rather than protect, but in the big scheme, I’d say that the R’s and Bush in particular is the biggest enemy the Constitution has seen in over 100 years.
Are you an army of one? Your statistical inference is lousy.
If you say that conservatives are gay, all it takes is one non-gay conservative to disprove that assertion. If you say some conservatives are gay, that would be different.

It was a goofy statement, my response was meant to be more humorous than scientifically accurate, but I think it is fair to say that saying the word "gun" can be empirically proven not to precipitate even the tiniest minority of liberals from "running like roaches in the night".

I like guns, I don’t gun laws, I don’t see Democrats advocating pushing gun laws on the federal level.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
I agree that California, and a few other cities and states have gone too far with gun laws, but states can regulate firearms.
Nope. The 2nd Amendment is one of the several BoR amendments explcitly intended to be extended to the states and subsidiary government by the 14th.

They 1860’s Republicans wanted the freedmen competently armed without state interference.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Nope. The 2nd Amendment is one of the several BoR amendments explcitly intended to be extended to the states and subsidiary government by the 14th.
Again, states can regulate firearms.

The 14th did indeed extend the BoR to the states, but "well regulated" must mean something.


Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
The 2nd Amendment does NOT need extension by 14th. It grants YOU a right as a US citizen. Just as the 1st grants Freedom of Press and Speech, and it applies to states no matter what. I had a nit-pick with Captin’s argument about states regulating firearms, but this just made it worse.

You have a right:
1) To Speech
2) To a Free Press
3) To Keep and Bear Arms.

It is not subject to state revocation or annulment, never was, before or after the 14th.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"The 2nd Amendment does NOT need extension by 14th."
I think yes it does, as it was originally a restriction on solely the national government, like most of the BoR amendments. A good case can be made that either it was intended to prohibit state restrictions, or that it was never conceived that the states as opposed to the national government might attempt to disarm the people. I just don’t think its the strongest case to be made on the issue.
"The 14th did indeed extend the BoR to the states, but "well regulated" must mean something."
It meant in the language of the day that the militia worked well, and had nothing to do with "regulation" as we think of it today. In the original usage, for example, you would take a multi barreled weapon to a gunsmith and ask him to regulate it to 200 yards. It has nothing to do with type or capability based restrictions. In fact it was explicitly written to ensure private citizens were legally able to be equivalently armed to the soldiers of the day.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tom I see your point, BUT unlike the 1st which restricts CONGRESS, the 2nd grants a right to the people...I would argue that is a grant DIRECTLY TO YOU, and it is irrelevant what your state says about it.

Which can be squared as it is, thru the right of regulation, which is not the same as the right to deny. State’s inherited the English Crown’s Police Power and to that extent states can and do restrict or regulate firearms, but you had a right to a firearm, really to weapons, by the US Constitution. So the 2nd wasn’t "extended" to the states, their citizens had the right to keep and bear as their right as US citizens.

But I’m not a lawyer and I would defer to those that are in this debate.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
the 2nd grants a right to the people
I’d put it like this, as written, the national government is refused persmission to in any way interfere with a right of the people—without in and of itself preventing the states from doing so.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"with a right" /= "with this right" Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I’d say that the R’s and Bush in particular is the biggest enemy the Constitution has seen in over 100 years.
Cap, spare me the hyperbole and gross distortions of history, please. FDR’s railroading of his alphabet soup agencies and plans through Congress is one clear example, followed by his threat to pack the Supreme Court. If that doesn’t strike you as more of a threat than Bush’s FISA nonsense then you are beyond help.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

This is NOT a prohibition, but a granting of the right...it’s not saying "You (who ever "you" may be-state or Federal-)may not interfere..." But instead, to me at least, grants ME a right. I see that as different between 1st and 2nd... the 1st limits government’s ability to act in certain areas-the Federal Gov’t, whereas the 2nd is NOT a limitation but the granting of a right to the People.

Again I’m not a lawyer...and I understand that the Court’s have not adopted a libertarian view of this, though not a pro-control position either, Miller is the most recent case and it’s from the 1920’s or 1930’s so this really hasn’t been litigated....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
For cripes sake, you can’t even buy a knife with a double-edged blade in California.

Heck, you can’t own a blowgun or a freakin’ tactical baton here in California.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
This is NOT a prohibition, but a granting of the right...it’s not saying "You (who ever "you" may be-state or Federal-)may not interfere..."
That I am sure is wrong. The constitution grants no rights, instead it variously grants authority to the national government to make legislation which affects certain rights, or by failing to grant that authority prohibits such legislation (though deprecated by the Supreme Court, the unamended 9th makes this clear), and in some cases specifically prohibits such legislation (like the 1st and 2nd).

That isn’t even a Libertarian view of the issue, it in the Federalist Papers for crying out loud!

The Constitution grants no rights.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Cap, spare me the hyperbole and gross distortions of history, please. FDR’s railroading of his alphabet soup agencies and plans through Congress is one clear example, followed by his threat to pack the Supreme Court. If that doesn’t strike you as more of a threat than Bush’s FISA nonsense then you are beyond help.
I am apparently beyond hope.

I hope you weren’t planning on hoping for me?

The only thing FDR that IMHO strikes the same chord Bush has struck is the internment of Japanese Americans.

As far as the Second Amendment goes, I want it to say one thing, I believe it says another. I want it to say that citizens have a right to own firearms and bladed weapons, period. I believe that this is a right that protects states from the federal government, not individuals.

Consider that President Jefferson required an accounting of every single weapon in every single state militia. This would be consistent with the state regulated militia, therefore state regulated arms, and would be inconsistent with today’s NRA types who would consider just an inventory of who owns what guns to be a violation of their rights.

Again, not much point arguing with me, as I will gladly support the "guns as an individual liberty" argument, and I would love to see legal decisions come down this way, but as a matter of intellectual honesty, I would be lying if I were to say that is how I read it.


Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
OT, but: So which part of the Libertarian Democrat Manifesto allows me to carry a gun? (crickets, crickets....)
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Tom YOU’RE wrong, here...it’s the Bill of RIGHTS...it is not a limitation on government’s power it is an enumeration of your RIGHTS. Please READ the 1st and 2nd...the 1st IS a prohibition on government action, "Congress shall make no law...", the 2nd reads,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
I see your point about a prohibition, but the 2nd really says you have a RIGHT as a US citizen to keep and bear. It’s not simply stating that someone may NOT do something, as the 1st does, prohibiting CONGRESS, though not necessarily by implication your state legislature.
And IIRC the Federalsit Papers were about the Constitution, NOT the BoR...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
OT, but: So which part of the Libertarian Democrat Manifesto allows me to carry a gun? (crickets, crickets....)
Another driveby....

What is it, does it somehow offend you that a someone who is not a Republican or big L Libertarian appreciates guns and wants to be able to continue to own them?

Or is just simply that you know that I think the libertarians and Democrats can have more commonalities than L’s and R’s do and therefore you are simply going to toss bombs no matter what I say?

Whatever... R’s are awful, I used to be one, these people are not what I meant to vote into power, but I am glad you have got what you wanted.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Whatever... R’s are awful, I used to be one, these people are not what I meant to vote into power, but I am glad you have got what you wanted.
NOW we see... the apostate... no one is more anti-Semtic than the lapsed Jew no one more anti-Popish than the lapsed Catholic, the worst anti-Smoking Nazi’s former smokers.

Well dude, I pity you, but I leave you with a line from Hackworth’s About Face,
Hackworth: "The Army’s not what it used to be."
General: "It never was."
I hear this all the time and wonder, "What did these folks think they were voting for?"
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"but I think it is fair to say that saying the word "gun" can be empirically proven not to precipitate even the tiniest minority of liberals from "running like roaches in the night"."

I think it can be empirically proven that, depending on tone of voice and other conditions, saying the word "gun" can precipitate a majority of any group with an IQ of two or more digits to run like roaches...


"Heck, you can’t own a blowgun or a freakin’ tactical baton here in California. "

"tactical baton"??
I presume that is a club. I love euphemisms.


"Whatever... R’s are awful,"

I am an R

There, another myth shattered.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
NOW we see... the apostate... no one is more anti-Semtic than the lapsed Jew no one more anti-Popish than the lapsed Catholic, the worst anti-Smoking Nazi’s former smokers.
I had 1000 words to rebut this, but ya know what, if you don’t get it why someone who was a Republican for more than 20 years left the party, then I could write a million words and it would not make a dent.

Save your pity for someone that got what they wanted with this government, they need it more than me.

I’ll fight to put in the Dem’s and when they screw up, I’ll fight to throw them out, and I’ll keep doing it until our government does their job. I am just going to try and be loyal to my country rather than a party.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
There, another myth shattered.
Is it?

Fair enough, I should have been more specific, Republican elected officials as a group are awful. My best friends are almost all Republicans, and none of them are awful... but more than a few of them are not VOTING Republican this time around.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy
Damn, I broke two rules in one post... I guess I am just not cut out to be a dictator.
Fair enough, I should have been more specific
My best friends are almost all Republicans, and none of them are awful
So Time, can you think of anything good about liberals? (can’t wait for entertaining sarcasm)

Are you ever wrong? (or did you think you were once, but found you were mistaken)
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

I like guns, I don’t gun laws, I don’t see Democrats advocating pushing gun laws on the federal level.
I guess you don’t see much of anything, do you? Ever heard of the Gun Control Act, the Brady Act or the federal AW ban (which finally lapsed in 2004, no thanks to your freedom-loving Democrats)? How about Al Gore, who ran in ’00 on a platform of federal licensing for handgun ownership? Even today, a Democrat takeover of the house of Congress would put NRA F-rated Congressmen in the chairs of every major committee, not to mention the House Speakership. Do you really think a Demcrat House led by Nancy Pelosi will advocate less gun control at the national level than did the last Democrat House, led by Tom Foley (then a life member of the NRA)?

I’m beginning to see why you don’t like us Rs much. Our mascot is an animal known for its long memory, which doesn’t appear to be your forte. Enjoy working with the other guys, who are even more appropriately represented by an ass.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com
Captin still I laugh...A "Believer"..well believe on, dude...Me I’m a Realist. It took the McGovern Wing of the Party 36 years to achieve dominance in their party, and I don’t believe they EVER wished for the R’s to win, to "teach their side a lesson." And it took FORTY years for them to begin to move their agenda.

I LOVE R’s who think that because it didn’t happen YESTERDAY or TODAY it’s not going to happen and decide to move on.

I don’t expect true change until the 2020’s and real movement until the 2030’s...I may not be alive to see it.

I like microwave popcorn and the Internet, I just see that politics doesn’t move to those speeds.

You keep moving from Party to Party always searching if you want...You be Shane, always drifting...I’ll be the homesteader...we’re dull but we make a difference. Or as is said in Flight of the Intruder, "Fighter Pilots make headlines, Bomber Pilots make History."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Do you really think a Demcrat House led by Nancy Pelosi will advocate less gun control at the national level than did the last Democrat House, led by Tom Foley (then a life member of the NRA)?
YES!

As I said before, Pelosi had every opportunity to push the R’s decision not to renew the assault rifle ban, the Dem’s didn’t make a peep. As an issue, gun control is a non-starter.

Do you really think that the Dem’s are going to pass the same kind of law that was a significant factor in their loss of both houses in 1994?

Show me anyone in the Dem leadership that is advocating new gun legislation for the upoming Congress or Senate (if they win)... you can’t, all you have is ancient history.

By the way, Pelosi got an F, but Reid got a B, I don’t see you mentioning that.

Ooooh, scary Dems gonna take your guns away.... Boo! (Happy Halloween)

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
You keep moving from Party to Party always searching if you want...You be Shane, always drifting...I’ll be the homesteader...we’re dull but we make a difference. Or as is said in Flight of the Intruder, "Fighter Pilots make headlines, Bomber Pilots make History."
I can’t say that I am exactly a drifter, yet, being active in one party for over 20 years. I am hoping that the Dems do a better job than the R’s and do a better job than they (Dems) did last time.

But if I am drifter, being that I live in Colorado, I’m gonna have to pass on Shane and be the High Plains Drifter.
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
As I said before, Pelosi had every opportunity to push the R’s decision not to renew the assault rifle ban, the Dem’s didn’t make a peep.
Well gee whiz, if you said it before, it must be true. Nevermind that Kerry himself made an issue of Bush, not even for opposing the extension of the AW ban, but for not pushing for it hard enough. Meanwhile, Sarah Brady talks of the upcoming election as the opportunity she and her ilk have been waiting for, and all Captain Oblivious wants to say is "La, la, la, I can’t hear you!"
Do you really think that the Dem’s are going to pass the same kind of law that was a significant factor in their loss of both houses in 1994?
Hell yes. They didn’t abandon gun control after the 1994 election, so what (other than a serious case of wishful thinking) makes you think they’ll start now?

 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"Are you ever wrong?"

I am always wrong.

******************

"...I may not be alive to see it."

My money is on that choice.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Meanwhile, Sarah Brady...
What Democratic leadership post is Sarah Brady up for?

Special Envoy To Not Being A Policy Maker At All?

Or are you suggesting that even though gun control is political Russian Roulette, that Democrats will pass legislation anyway because..., what, conviction?
Well gee whiz, if you said it before, it must be true.
It’s still true, see the Washington Times story below.

The Washington Times, not known a liberal media outlet, has consistently noted over a period of years, that since 2000, the Democratic party in general has no interest in pursuing gun control.

The only people that are still pursuing gun control are the single issue advocates, like Sarah Brady.

And by the way, Harry Reid, who recieved a rating of B from the NRA is not going to bringing any gun control bills to the floor.
Democrats shunning gun control


By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



Democrats appear to have abandoned gun control as a political wedge, declining to push the issue in Congress despite being given the opportunity by congressional Republicans.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, upbraided President Bush earlier this month for not pushing fellow Republicans to bring the assault-weapons ban up for reauthorization before it expires in September 2004.
"The president has announced that he supports the assault ban, and it would be helpful if he used his good offices to do that," Mrs. Pelosi said at her last weekly press briefing before the Memorial Day recess. "I don’t know whether he intends to or not."
House Republicans consider it a pretty safe bet that he won’t, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas has stated that the chances of a renewal of the ban coming to the House floor are slim.
Yet Democrats still have options — both rhetorically, by trying to make gun control a hot-button issue again, and legislatively, by filing for a discharge petition to get a vote on the floor.
Mrs. Pelosi, however, has declined to commit to either strategy and acknowledged that if the vote comes to the floor, many Democrats would not vote to renew the ban.
"We would probably lose some votes," Mrs. Pelosi said early this month. "It won’t be something that we would be whipping."
Asked whether she would push for a discharge petition, which requires support from a majority of House members, to force an up-or-down vote on the assault-weapons ban, Mrs. Pelosi balked, saying that "our discharge focus is now on unemployment compensation."
After the press briefing, however, Mrs. Pelosi said the Democrats might revisit guns "when the issue is ripe."
Republicans see that as a dodge.
"There seems to be a disconnect between Leader Pelosi’s desire for the administration to utilize its ’good offices,’ while at the same time maintaining that they don’t intend to whip the issue," a high-level House Republican staffer said.
"If you want something done in this town, you have to be willing to lift a finger at the very least. But on this issue and so many others, it’s apparent that the Democrats aren’t interested in results, just rhetoric," the staffer said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, has introduced a bill to reauthorize the ban on 19 types of "assault weapons," which first passed in 1994. It has garnered eight co-sponsors after several weeks of courting.
Meanwhile, a bill protecting firearms manufacturers and gun-store owners from liability if their guns are used to commit crimes passed in the House on April 9 by a vote of 285-140, with the support of 63 Democrats.
The Senate version of the bill has 52 co-sponsors and is expected to pass during the summer.
Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, sees these as signs that the political tide turned long ago against those who support further regulating firearms.
He pointed to the defeat in the 2000 presidential election of Al Gore in such Democratic-leaning yet pro-gun states as West Virginia, Arkansas and his home state of Tennessee.
And in the 2002 midterm elections, 230 of 246 House candidates endorsed by the NRA emerged victorious.
"If you look at the results of the last two elections, you see a trend that candidates who are supporters of gun rights for law-abiding citizens tend to prevail," Mr. Arulanandam said.
Gun-control groups, however, suggest that the issue may be dormant now, but is apt to become an electoral factor by 2004.
"No one is particularly focused on this," said Matt Bennett, spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety. "There is no hook for this issue quite yet. But when the public realizes that unless Congress acts [by September 2004], that ’street sweepers’ and Tec-9s will hit the streets again, it will become hot again."
Democrats abandon the gun issue at their peril, said Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
He disputed the NRA’s political success stories, noting that Mr. Gore won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — states where advocates on both sides of the gun issue spent heavily on political advertising.
"There isn’t a shred of evidence that says gun control is a political loser," Mr. Rummel said. "It hasn’t cost a candidate a political race anywhere."
Mr. Rummel also pointed to the failed campaign of Senate candidate Jean Carnahan, Missouri Democrat, who tried to woo gun owners by wearing hunting camouflage in her political advertising.
"The Democrats ran away from gun safety in the 2002 elections, and look where it got them," Mr. Rummel said. "Whoever is advising them on gun control should be shot."
Democrats "foolishly believe the NRA is going to go easy on them" if they register a vote for the liability protection or keep quiet about the assault-weapons ban, Mr. Rummel said.
"This issue is never going to go away," he said.
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider