[Waitone]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/9/164624.shtml
Latest Democrat Extremism: Guns Are Weapons of Mass Destruction
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, April 9, 2003

Defenders of the Second Amendment are on the lookout for a new Democrat campaign, already attempted in one state, to brand handguns as “weapons of mass destruction.”
Washington Gov. Gary Locke, picked by the Democrats to give their response President Bush’s State of the Union address just a couple of months ago, urged his state's Legislature to create six terror-related crimes that would bring guns under the legal definition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Though the legislation offered by the governor and Attorney General Christine Gregoire did not mention specific weapons, Join Together Online, an anti-gun group, reported the legislation defined a weapon of mass destruction as a “device, object, or substance that a person intends to use to cause multiple human deaths.”

Here is how the Seattle Times on March 15 led its story on how the Legislature dealt with the issue: “An anti-terrorism bill has spurred a debate among lawmakers: Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction?”

In response to the governor, several Democrat lawmakers crafted House Bill 1210 to include firearms as weapons of mass destruction.

The state legislators cited last October’s sniper attacks in the District of Columbia area as their foot in the door to try to deprive law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights. The snipers had ties to the Seattle area.

'I Tried to Push the Envelope'

“I tried to push the envelope on this bill to see if it would cover those guys if they had chosen to take out the rest of their aggression in Washington,” said Democrat state Rep. Jeannie Darneille. “And the answer, quite frankly, was no.”

Gun rights groups and Connecticut gun maker Colt Manufacturing said that defining firearms as weapons of mass destruction “is an attempt to regulate gun control” and would permit any gun to be considered a weapon of mass destruction.

To those who disingenuously argued that guns were not so defined in the legislation, Joe Waldron, a lobbyist for Gun Owner’s Action League and other gun rights groups, said it met “everybody else’s definition other than those in Olympia.”

According to an AP dispatch March 19, the Washington House of Representatives passed the anti-terrorism bill, but only after the section listing firearms as weapons of mass destruction was dropped. That change resulted from the insistence of more conservative lawmakers. Though it was a close call, some semblance of rationality ultimately prevailed.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the federal government asked each state to enact some kind of anti-terrorism legislation. Of course, defining handguns as weapons of mass destruction was not something the Bush administration had in mind.

The recent events in the Evergreen State demonstrate the necessity of vigilance to make certain that thinly disguised gun control (by whatever name) does not spread to other state Capitols or to the U.S. Congress.

From 'Scoop' Jackson to 'Osama Mama' Murray

The stunt in Olympia also illustrates what has happened in Washington's state Democrat party, which decades ago gave the nation the level-headed wisdom of Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a U.S. senator for nearly 30 years.

By contrast, today’s Democrat party in that state gives us, in addition to leaders who try to exploit the war on terrorism to sabotage the Second Amendment, the likes of: Saddam pal Rep. "Baghdad" Jim McDermott, former Internet tycoon Sen. Maria "Can't Pay" Cantwell, and Sen. Patty “Osama Mama” Murray, who lied that the world’s leading terrorist was a great benefactor who did more for Afghanistanis than the United States did.

After Al Gore lost the last presidential election despite a strong economy and all the advantages of White House incumbency, some party moderates noted that his anti-gun extremism cost him such states as Tennessee, Arkansas and West Virginia. To stop losing elections, the party must mute its anti-choice extremism, the moderates cautioned.

It appears that leftist Democrats are once again eager to run roughshod over the centrists, no matter what the cost.

[TarpleyG]

:barf:

[Tamara]

One SIG P-225, if dropped over a major metropolitan area, could kill millions! :eek:

Hey, they're just words, and to an ardent postmodernist, words mean whatever one wants them to mean... :rolleyes:

[4v50 Gary]

Actually, that's good news to us. The more extreme they become, the more distant they'll grow from the moderates. Political suicide is a good thing.

[UnknownSailor]

That lead-off story is just a bit off. The WMD bill, as introduced, had no firearm provisions it it. The firearm bit was added via amendment by a state legislator in the SW corner of the state, in an effort to kill the entire bill. Last I heard, the sponsors of the origional bill were working to get this amendment struck. This was about a month ago. Admittedly, I have heard no news about this since then.

[Wildalaska]

The more extreme they become, the more distant they'll grow from the moderates. Political suicide is a good thing.

Wisdom that is equally applicable to the pro gun movement...we are at a critical juncture and if things are done right, the whole controversey can end once and for all....


WildmoderateAlaska

[Master Blaster]

Boeing 767 = Weapon of mass destruction when flown by terrorists with a full gas tank.

Wonder how that would "fly" in Boeing's home state???

[Skunkabilly]

My Beretta just punches a little hole in a tennis ball that closes back up.

Do I need an upgrade?

[pax]

Actually, that's good news to us. The more extreme they become, the more distant they'll grow from the moderates. Political suicide is a good thing.
I wish you were right, Gary.

What will happen instead is that the right & moderates will "compromise" with these nuts, and thus the center of the political teeter-totter will shift just a little toward their end, too.

For a long time, I have thought that the problem with the pro-RKBA movement is that our "extremes" aren't extreme enough. Our extremes should be demanding that every household in America must own a gun and that every adult in America must know how to shoot same, so that we can "compromise" to allow every household to own a gun etc etc.

In any case, these people are eventually going to succeed in their attempts to redefine the terms of the debate. When they do, gun owners will be "terrorists" unless proven otherwise -- and most folks will think that's okay, because it'll be easy enough to show otherwise, right?

But at the same time, we've got people like Mike Hawash and Jose Padilla and who-knows-who else, locked up indefinitely without charges because they could be terrorists (or material witnesses to terrorism, or might have intended to be terrorists, or ...).

I think this is a bad confluence of forces, myself.

pax

Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. – President George W. Bush, Sept. 11, 2001

[StuporDave]

Using that logic, almost anything is a WMD. You could kill multiple (more than one) people with a hammer, a knife, a car, a screwdriver, gasoline, plastic bags, your bare hands, you name it.

[DeltaElite]

Simply ridicilous, friggin Democrats.

[BogBabe]

Good analysis, pax.

You're right -- we've compromised so much that the "center" is now far, far to the left of where it started. We need to pull and haul shove and push the "center" back toward to the center. And we can only do that by becoming more extreme ourselves.

[Sir Galahad]

The whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" thing is overblown hype. We need to go back to the proper military phrase of "NBC weapons" (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). That puts things into perspective. First off, biological weapons destroy life, but not property. So, properly, they would be "weapons of mass, unselective murder." Same with chemical weapons. I find it remarkable, though, that liberals advocate against the use of firearms for self-defense and advise people to use pepper spray. A chemical weapon. While allegedly non-lethal, people have been known to die from CS, Mace, CN, and even pepper spray. So we have liberals advocating chemical weapons for personal self-defense over firearms. Let's look at that again. A chemical weapon that will incapacitate anyone else in proximity of the targeted person. How about that nightclub stampede in Chicago that killed all those people? Thanks to a chemical weapon. So now who's using "weapons of mass destruction"?

Firearms do not spread contagious diseases, do not cause nuclear exposions, and do not spread poison gas. Therefore, they are not WMDs or NBC weapons. That is why they are known as "personal weapons".

[Schuey2002]

This is why we can't let Mrs. Slick Willy get a shot at the 'Big Chair' !!

:fire:

[cool45auto]

:fire: :cuss: :banghead: :barf:

[NIGHTWATCH]

Godbless the 1st amendment. The Dems just dont get it and are bent on political suicide...I love it!!! :D

[Vladimir Berkov]

I don't see why everybody is so upset.

WMD is such an ambiguous term, that it doesn't surprise me in the least that people are trying this tactic.

Especially now that Bush has built the term up as the be-all-end-all of evil words.

[Waitone]

The Second Amendment Wars are wars fought over definitions. What is happening to the term "WMD" is exactly the same as what happened to "Assault weapon."
--Its a known but generally unused term.
--Its use in popular media is dramatically increased.
--Over time alternative definitions are introduced and eventually achieve popular usage.
--Legislation is introduced, debated, and passed based on the alternative definitions.
--Original definition disappears from popular usage.
--Then when new definition becomes dominant after legislation is enacted, definitions are then changed and new provisions in law are created by administrative fiat and without the messy complication of enacting legislation.
--Presto chango---"stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool, huh?"