Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution

[Stupid]

Really like this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul90.html

Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President “supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.�

Perhaps this should have surprised no one. 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. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11th also dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased.

Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration’s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called “assault weapons� are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. “Who could possibly need such weapons?� is the standard question posed by gun control advocates.

Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified “assault rifles� outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.

More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America� – but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.

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. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:

“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?�

April 22, 2003

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[txinvestigator]

Not bad for a four and a half year old article, most of which the points are irrelevant now.

[KBCraig]

Ron Paul

Constitution.

'Nuff said.

[Photoman]

More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America� – but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.

This is a very interesting point in light of the soon-to-be presented SCOTUS case regarding the DC ruling.

[txmatt]

Not bad for a four and a half year old article, most of which the points are irrelevant now.

Given the democrat-controlled congress led by some of their more radical, and the repeated attempts by McCarthy of NY to get the new assault weapons ban passed, not to mention the somewhat dismal prospects at this point for 2008, I don't think much of the article is irrelevant at all. Too bad most pro-gun politicians cannot articulate their position as well as Ron Paul (at least not that I've heard recently...)

[frankie_the_yankee]

More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America� – but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.

This is a very interesting point in light of the soon-to-be presented SCOTUS case regarding the DC ruling.

IMO, while I agree that the 2A is only minimally about hunting deer, I think it certainly is about keeping a gun in your nightstand, protecting yourself against common criminals, AND ALSO as a deterrent against tyranny.

IOW, it's "all of the above".

[yerasimos]

It is my understanding that Bush43 indicated he would sign an AWB renewal if Congress passed a bill reauthorizing it. I am certain he (and Rove) figured that the Delay-controlled House of Representatives would never let an AWB pass the House and make it to the White House for signature. It seems as though their seemingly supportive statements were a method of appearing supportive for "reasonable" gun control to attract every vote they could in the elections. Also remember that after the AWB expired in mid-September 2004, the NRA endorsed Bush43 in the imminent election, and this cooperation was followed by lawsuit protection for the gun industry (2005) and prohibition of federal support for firearm confiscation in emergencies (2006).

Remember also that in the aftermath of Luby's in Killeen (1991?) and the initial AWB's passage in 1994, Rove/Bush indicated support for CHL legislation, which surely helped get them/him into the governor's mansion.

All that said, I am proud to have Ron Paul as my representative in Washington, and I am delighted that he is running for POTUS. While he and the NRA may have had disagreements in the past, I doubt it is possible to find a better friend of the Second Amendment in Congress--and the pool of presidential candidates--than Ron Paul.

[stevie_d_64]

It is my understanding that Bush43 indicated he would sign an AWB renewal if Congress passed a bill reauthorizing it. I am certain he (and Rove) figured that the Delay-controlled House of Representatives would never let an AWB pass the House and make it to the White House for signature.

You are dead on the money there...But...Guess where DeLay is now??? And who's yanking our chains in Congress now???

Ask me if I have a warm and fuzzy about any of this???

It seems as though their seemingly supportive statements were a method of Remember also that in the aftermath of Luby's in Killeen (1991?) and the initial AWB's passage in 1994, Rove/Bush indicated support for CHL legislation, which surely helped get them/him into the governor's mansion.

Always has seemed like they dared us into thinking a vote for them was a solid defense for our right to keep and bear arms...

But until the rubber meets the road, having someone else hold their water seemed to be the status quo, and got some to believe they were solid 2A supporters...I have always been very cautious of any candidate or elected official that behaved this way...

Suzanne Hupp summed it up rather nicely I believe years ago...Something to go back and watch if you can find the video...

[atxgun]

Not bad for a four and a half year old article, most of which the points are irrelevant now.

Care to elaborate on which points are irrelevant and why?

[yerasimos]

You are dead on the money there...But...Guess where DeLay is now??? And who's yanking our chains in Congress now???

Ask me if I have a warm and fuzzy about any of this???

While we have enjoyed success at the state level in 2007, the heady days of 2004-2005 (AWB expiry, Delay's iron-fisted control over the House, the NRA's Apr2005 meeting in Houston) are over.

Last I checked, Delay had transplanted himself to Virginia while his legal mess in Austin slowly unwinds, and we have a madwoman Speaker who, for now, seems distracted with fuel economy legislation, an Armenian genocide resolution, and various other sundry matters which--for now--does not include McCarthy's pet legislation, which has not acquired much traction AFAIK. On this latter point, I wholeheartedly believe the anti-gunners are simply waiting for the right time (a even more opportune time for them than the Virginia Tech tragedy) to ramrod it through.

But until the rubber meets the road, having someone else hold their water seemed to be the status quo, and got some to believe they were solid 2A supporters...I have always been very cautious of any candidate or elected official that behaved this way...
Suzanne Hupp summed it up rather nicely I believe years ago...Something to go back and watch if you can find the video...

Good points, Stevie. I would put current/former politicians like Hupp and Paul in the top tier of 2A supporters, because they support it as a matter of iron-clad principle. A much larger group of politicians comprise a second tier of 2A supporters; I am thinking of professional politicians such as Delay (his limboed CHL notwithstanding), the Bushes, etc who seem more likely to regard the 2A as an ideology that hooks a base of voters they need to get (re)elected. Having a broader, bipartisan second tier would serve to hinder/block anti-gun legislation. And if SCOTUS rules next year in favor of an individual rights interpretation of the 2A, that could be a very helpful buffer, too.

[Liberty]

Good points, Stevie. I would put current/former politicians like Hupp and Paul in the top tier of 2A supporters, because they support it as a matter of iron-clad principle. A much larger group of politicians comprise a second tier of 2A supporters; I am thinking of professional politicians such as Delay (his limboed CHL notwithstanding), the Bushes, etc who seem more likely to regard the 2A as an ideology that hooks a base of voters they need to get (re)elected. Having a broader, bipartisan second tier would serve to hinder/block anti-gun legislation. And if SCOTUS rules next year in favor of an individual rights interpretation of the 2A, that could be a very helpful buffer, too.

Whats tough is that on a national scene the Democrats understand that taking an open anti stance will cost them the election. Its the Republicans such Gulliani and Romney who waiver in their support. My stomach churns just thinking about it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Just remember that on the national level, Democrats are instinctively anti gun-rights.

Republicans tend to be neutral or pro gun-rights.

The other thing to keep in mnd is that the party leadership, (commottee chairpersons) of both parties, tends to reflect the party base. This is because senority is a big factor in determining who gets to run the committees. The most senior members are those who have been re-elected many times (obviously). This means that they come from "safe" districts, where their party greatly outnumbers the other.

These districts tend to elect people who trend more towards the exteme ends of the spectrum.

So when you vote for a Democrat, you get Pelosi, Conyers, Kennedy, etc. in the leadership even though the local guy you may have voted for might have good 2A views.

And when you vote for a minor party candidate, what you are really doing is casting half a vote for the leading major party candidate.

[mr surveyor]

Just remember that on the national level, Democrats are instinctively anti gun-rights.

Republicans tend to be neutral or pro gun-rights.

The other thing to keep in mnd is that the party leadership, (commottee chairpersons) of both parties, tends to reflect the party base. This is because senority is a big factor in determining who gets to run the committees. The most senior members are those who have been re-elected many times (obviously). This means that they come from "safe" districts, where their party greatly outnumbers the other.

These districts tend to elect people who trend more towards the exteme ends of the spectrum.

So when you vote for a Democrat, you get Pelosi, Conyers, Kennedy, etc. in the leadership even though the local guy you may have voted for might have good 2A views.

And when you vote for a minor party candidate, what you are really doing is casting half a vote for the leading major party candidate.

very well stated.... unfortunately I am in the process of trying to (re)convince my 30 something year old son that "party politics" really DO matter. Maybe you do sometimes have to hold your nose and pull the lever, but to be apathetic and refuse to vote because your party's nominee doesn't hold to ALL of your personal beliefs is the same as giving Hill and Nancy (who probably will NOT remain in the Spraker's position long anyway) at least a half a vote. It's really easy to become narrowly focused on a single issue, but to be a single issue voter - or non-voter in the case of stay at home idealists - automatically assures the real opposition of less competition for leadership roles.

[Photoman]

unfortunately I am in the process of trying to (re)convince my 30 something year old son that "party politics" really DO matter. Maybe you do sometimes have to hold your nose and pull the lever, but to be apathetic and refuse to vote because your party's nominee doesn't hold to ALL of your personal beliefs is the same as giving Hill and Nancy (who probably will NOT remain in the Spraker's position long anyway) at least a half a vote. It's really easy to become narrowly focused on a single issue, but to be a single issue voter - or non-voter in the case of stay at home idealists - automatically assures the real opposition of less competition for leadership roles.

Expecting to find a politician that represents ALL of your beliefs is adolescent.

Holding your nose and voting for someone that represents an immoral position is condemnable.

Not voting is an insult to the memory of those that risked all, some losing all.

[srothstein]

Not voting is an insult to the memory of those that risked all, some losing all.

I just wanted to point out my disagreement with this statement. Not voting because you are lazy, ignorant, or busy may be an insult. Not voting because there is not a candidate you could support is a reasoned and proper choice. It is a form of voting called an abstention and we all have that right, also. "I abstain" is always recognized as an allowable vote.

Given some of our political candidates and choices, I abstain from several races.