Our right to arms: What's at stake this November


PDA






progunner1957
October 18, 2006, 01:48 PM
Alan Korwin makes it plain as to what's at stake in this November election regarding our right to arms:

EVERYTHING.


The Left Wing's Gun Plans

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
October 16, 2006

It’s time to remember what the Democrat party generally seeks regarding guns and gun rights. The list below was widely circulated while Clinton was in power.

The democrat-backed Brady group and similar outfits have been quiet about guns because they want to win the election, and get to impose their goals on your rights --

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.
2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.
3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.
4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).
5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).
6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more than 200,000).
7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.
8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections).
9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.
10. Banning all military style firearms.
11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.
12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other.
13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group.
14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.
15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62x54R and .303).
16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession.
17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).
18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.
19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time.
20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.
21. A National License for Ammunition.
22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.
23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.26. Special Licensing of ranges.
27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).
28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
29. Banning Gun Shows.
30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:

Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and paintball).
The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers.
Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.
The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

While it’s true Republicans haven’t done very much to defend your gun rights (OK, they have done a little) in six years of control, they offer little support for the anti-rights disarm-the-public plans the left wing will impose on you if they gain power in the next election. It’s your choice. Do you stay home and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box? Tell your friends.

If you took the bait and voted early, instead of rising up as a whole and voting on election day like you’re supposed to, this message is too late and you got screwed.

Thanks for reading.
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Permission to circulate this message gladly granted.
http://www.gunlaws.com


"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little."
--Edmund Burke


Folks, don't make the mistake of saying, "That can't happen here." It is that kind of thinking that can make it happen here!

If you enjoyed reading about "Our right to arms: What's at stake this November" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
orangelo
October 18, 2006, 01:52 PM
I got enough reasons not to vote for a Donkey without even considering their gun-control fetish.

I plan on voting straight R next month.

If the donkeys want to ever have a chance of winning my vote they'll have to ditch the boxers, feinsteins, pelosis, launtenbergs, kerries, kennedies mccarthies, waters, jackson-lees, obamas, conyers, well hrm... maybe they should just forget about it. :rolleyes:

Sean Dempsey
October 18, 2006, 01:57 PM
I realize there is a strong anti-gun lobby with the Democrats, but this thing reads like one of thise silly email chain letters that is supposedly "100% true!".

progunner1957
October 18, 2006, 02:01 PM
As far as our right to arms goes, you can't go too far wrong if you vote straight Republican.

90 to 95% of the Democrats - those in Congress especially - have proven themselves to be antigun bigots by their past voting records.

this thing reads like one of thise silly email chain letters that is supposedly "100% true!".
Except for the fact that it is true. This is what they want. Look at "Brady Bill 2" to get it straight from their own mouths.

Soybomb
October 18, 2006, 02:09 PM
Sadly a vote for the republicans is also a vote for things like The Military Commissions Act of 2006.


White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation of the standards, but those documents are not usually made public.

Snow rejected the idea that Americans should be able to see and judge the standards for themselves, particularly in the aftermath of illegal abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

"The only way accountability doesn't exist is if you believe that the military is not committed to it," Snow said.

I love having to pick which rights are important and which I can cast aside.

Manedwolf
October 18, 2006, 02:11 PM
It's become a contest of either letting one side trash the 2nd amendment, or letting the other side trash ALL of the others. And if that side gets too cocky, they might well go for that one, too.

Gridlock is good.

ArmedBear
October 18, 2006, 02:12 PM
Federal and SCOTUS Judges are at the top of the list.

Soybomb, what Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, et al. did during wartime makes that look like nothing.

Just a little perspective...

ArmedBear
October 18, 2006, 02:13 PM
It's become a contest of either letting one side trash the 2nd amendment, or letting the other side trash ALL of the others. And if that side gets too cocky, they might well go for that one, too.

Ludicrous moonbattery.

All the others? Give me a break.

Manedwolf
October 18, 2006, 02:26 PM
All the others? Give me a break.

1st: People cuffed by Secret Service for yelling "F-you" at Cheney, people arrested for t-shirts, for not acting like the pre-vetted bobblehead crowd at a speech was supposed to act. Administration-endorsed villification of people who dare disagree. Forced religiousity of the state-branded flavor. Using taxpayer dollars for faith-based groups.

3rd: Okay, nobody's gotten THIS one yet. We have plenty of barracks.

4th: Sneak and peek searches, wiretaps without FISA warrants, library records, etc.

5th: Suspension of Habeus Corpus and no access to attorney, tortured or otherwise intimidated to talk in ways that can incriminate one's self.

6th: Held indefinitely without trial. There goes that one.

7th: No right to trial by jury if Bush or his people so decide. Military tribunal.

8th: Cruel and unusual punishment? Hm. Waterboarding? Wonder when they'll start doing it to American citizens, too. Or have they?

9th: Do you even have to ask?

10th: State's rights? Yeah, right. With Homeland Sekurity stepping all over that, and the National Guard units all sucked away to the sandbox. Not to mention the Schaivo bit of federal intrusion in a state matter.

So there you go.

chorlton
October 18, 2006, 02:34 PM
Re: 5th
Manedwolf, I think you'll appreciate this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg&eurl=

Biker
October 18, 2006, 02:43 PM
I'm with Manedwolf. Gridlock is good.There is nothing "conservative" about most of the Pubbies in office and they'll have to earn *my* vote if they ever want it again.

Biker

david_the_greek
October 18, 2006, 02:55 PM
another vote for manedwolf's view. atleast if dems were in power I'd be able to bit*h and moan about them taking my rights. with the current powers I'd probably be dragged away as an unpatriotic terror suspect because I'm not following blindly. both parties stink right now. if only we could figure out a way to send the message for congress to get back to its true purpose, including countering the other branches and doing whats in my best interest (also including fighting tooth and nail for each of my freedoms).

Derek Zeanah
October 18, 2006, 03:03 PM
I'm sorry folks - the Republicans aren't what they used to be. If they want to promise a "contract with america" style platform then they'll get my vote - you know, smaller government and more freedom.

Instead, I think voting republican gets more of the same of what we've seen since Bush got in office - less rights and more government.

You can say "it'll be worse if we don't vote for more of the same!" That's fine for you, but I refuse to say "thank you Sir, may I have another?"

I'll not vote before I vote republican.

Lone_Gunman
October 18, 2006, 03:08 PM
I'm with Manedwolf. Gridlock is good.There is nothing "conservative" about most of the Pubbies in office and they'll have to earn *my* vote if they ever want it again.


I've been pushing for gridlock since the 2002 mid term elections.

I don't support much of anything about the Democrats, but the Republicans have given us more damaging legislation than the Democrats ever did under Bill Clinton.

With the Republicans in control, we now have
Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform/Drug Program, No Child Left Behind, No plan to control the border and stop illegal immigration, Patriot Act, and perpetual War on Terrorism with no cohesive plan on what to do next, nuclear weapons in N. Korea (and soon to be in Iran) and the largest, most intrusive federal bureaucracy of all time.

The Republican lap dogs are yapping about how bad things would be with the Democrats in charge, but please tell me how a party who claims to be for limited, unobtrusive government, fiscal responsibilty, and a strong national defense could let these things happen???

pharmer
October 18, 2006, 03:36 PM
Both parties are for bigger government. But the dems are much worse regarding individual freedom. I'd hold my nose and vote for an antigun republican before a pro-gun democrat. It's about political control, I don't want the dems in control. Yes it's a choice between s#!t and stink, but it's been that way since FDR. Joe

wdlsguy
October 18, 2006, 03:40 PM
I'd hold my nose and vote for an antigun republican before a pro-gun democrat.
Which would be a vote FOR gun control. I would do the exact opposite.

Malone LaVeigh
October 18, 2006, 03:41 PM
Does anyone believe the author got that list anywhere other than a lower bodily orfice? Or is he hacking into Fienstein's databases?

silliman89
October 18, 2006, 07:24 PM
Art closed this thread just the other day.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=228394

sm
October 18, 2006, 08:07 PM
Apathy, Lies Rigged Voting, Media Making Money on Ads,Graft, Lies, Shortage on KY, Lies,Backroom Shady Deal...

That is just the Critters running for office and the various Politcal Machines Meddlin' with not only The Second Amendment - but the COTUS, BoR and the whole fabric of our Republic.

I have never ever voted for a Democrat, and I ain't about to start now. Screw 'em, feed 'em fish heads and rice.

Republicans - not much difference, just one party is spelled different than the other.

So I basically, for ME, I piss folks off, say what is on my mind, and let both Parties know they have FAILED. I voted Libertarian last time for the white house spot, and other spots around here locally. I knew of a few Republicans, and they are more Liberatarians that Elephants so I voted for these locally and really did spit in front of and told one Donkey to shut the heck up!

Hey, we have had All these Parties , on campus wanting to get a Candidate on the Ballot. Darn straight I will sign a Petition for some I can believe in, at least send the message - "we ain't voting for for what you are selling - cow pasture full of that stuff anyway".

I said it is time to show we have some Gonads and take back what is ours.

Heck The Great Pumpkin has got more sense and understanding than the elected folks we got now...

Just me you understand.

GoRon
October 18, 2006, 08:37 PM
I'm voting with the Supreme Court and other appointed judges in mind.

'm sorry folks - the Republicans aren't what they used to be. If they want to promise a "contract with america" style platform then they'll get my vote - you know, smaller government and more freedom.

I pretty much agree with Dereks whole post except for the fact President Bush may get a chance to oppoint another SC Justice. Probably a whole host of other judges.

If you think the Presidents judicial picks are as bad as what the Democrats want then you haven't been paying attention.

I'm all for punishing the "forgot my core values" Republicans, just not at the expense of turning this country over to the higher taxes, cut and run, we are the problem with the world, even bigger government is better crowd.

Lets save the gridlock until after the next SC Justice retires.

Lone_Gunman
October 18, 2006, 08:47 PM
The Supreme Court Justices are a crap shoot, no matter who picks them.

Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Reagan, and voted with the liberals more often than the conservatives.

After George Bush appointed Harriet Miers, I have little confidence that he is really putting much thought into his picks.

xd9fan
October 18, 2006, 09:30 PM
Gridlock is good.

Gridlock is good and I hope this happens. But with the GOP sooooo damn moderate (the Conservatives still being locked away in the WashingtonDC closet)
I'm not confidant that the Dems taking one or both houses will cause the GOP to look in their pants to see of they have any balls left to fight back.

I would love to believe gridlock will "save the day" But from a Pro-govt loving GOP I doubt they would even put a sunset clause in a new Assault weapons Ban!!!!! Hell in 1994 thats the only thing they could "compromise" on. When they should have filibustered, stopped the world from spinning....do whatever it took not to have that AWB become law in the first place.

I will not reward the GOP with a vote (the past ear mark spending alone will make me protest them) ......lets see how they act with losing the house......will this give them "religion"? Will they show that they care about the conservative base? They maybe they will start deserving votes again.


Tried of radio talkshow hosts already blaming Gop voters if they dont vote for the party. Dont blame me for the GOP earmark spending orgies PAL!!! How does voting for them correct their behavior???? please anybody let me know.......

Prince Yamato
October 18, 2006, 10:08 PM
Hmm let's see

Republicans: Big Gov't, lets me keep my guns
Democrats: Bigger Gov't and more socialist, takes my guns

I'll vote Republican.

ebd10
October 18, 2006, 10:39 PM
Republicans: Big Gov't, lets me keep my guns


So now we depend on the Republicans to let us exercise our Constitutional rights? Screw 'em, I'm voting Libertarian and Republicans and Democrats both be damned.

GoRon
October 18, 2006, 10:58 PM
The Supreme Court Justices are a crap shoot, no matter who picks them.
Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Reagan, and voted with the liberals more often than the conservatives.
After George Bush appointed Harriet Miers, I have little confidence that he is really putting much thought into his picks.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens vs John Roberts and Samual Alito, no contest.

There is always the possibility of a Souter:barf: slipping through but even H Miers would be better than Ginsburg.

FTF
October 18, 2006, 11:04 PM
I already have my strategery down for this years elections.

I'm voting Republican for Governor and Lt. Governor. Senator and my local Congressperson.

Every other position, from State Agricultural Commissioner to Seceratary of State gets the libertarian vote first and if there isn't one running, it's republican by default.

I think, at least from looking at whats up for election in my state, that this reflects how I feel that the republican party is better for me overall (not just on guns of course), and hopefully, my votes for libertarians in other offices may actually help elect one of them or encourage more to run on that platform in the future.

All I can do is vote... well that and tell everyone who will listen what my plan is for the great state of GA:)

GoRon
October 18, 2006, 11:07 PM
So now we depend on the Republicans to let us exercise our Constitutional rights? Screw 'em, I'm voting Libertarian and Republicans and Democrats both be damned.

If the Libertarians were in charge HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, excuse me, as preposterous as that sounds, they would only be letting you exercise your rights also. They would have the power of the most powerful superpower ever on earth. They would be wielding the power to strip your rights away albeit just more benevolently. The genie is out of the bottle.


Ha Ha Ha libertarians winning an election <giggle> thats a good one,lol.

SoCalShooter
October 18, 2006, 11:15 PM
With you on this one, since that new bill got signed and totally exhonorated bushco and the cronies, if I take away 1 vote for either party thats a good thing.

progunner1957
October 18, 2006, 11:51 PM
I still say that if you care about our right to arms, vote for the progun candidates who have the most viable shot at beating the antigun bigots, regardless of party.

That leaves 90 to 95% of the Democrats out as far as voting for them, as well as about the same percentage (or more) of Libertarians.

Who to vote for, then? NRA endorsed candidates, that's who.

Alot of gun owners would rather beat on the Republicans than vote for a progun Republican - vote for an antigun bigot, that'll teach "them damn Republicans" a lesson!

Well congratulations, genius - you may teach "them damn Republicans" a lesson but in doing so, you will put antigun bigots in power and gut our right to arms in the process.

Divide and conquer - it is one of the antigun bigot's favorite tools.

liberalgunnut
October 19, 2006, 12:22 AM
Your post title should say... Vote Guns First, forget about freedom. you seem to ignore that the republicans passed the Military Commissions Act. Which gives 1 person the right to point his finger at you and take all your rights away INCLUDING YOUR GUNS without the hint of due process, without you seeing what you've done to deserve it, and to be detained for as long as they feel like it.

Welcome to your new America.

scurtis_34471
October 19, 2006, 12:57 AM
This is way more complicated than Republicans = Good and Democrats = Bad. The fact is that our rights are being eroded from both the far right and the far left. Political parties are driven by activists and not many people get passionate about being centrist or reasonable. The only way to keep the extreme members of either party to run amok is to limit their power. The only way to do that is to make sure that there is a balance of power between the right and the left that forces them to meet in the middle and compromise.

Look, I don't like big government. I am not a big fan of socialism, I am a firm believer in Gun rights and I think school vouchers make a lot of sense. I am also pro-choice, in favor of Gay civil marriage and against prayer in public schools. I guess that makes me more of a Libertarian than anything else, but they are never going to win and I will tell you why. The Libertarian party takes its positions to stupid extremes that most people in this country think are completely nuts. That leaves us with the idiotic parties we have now and the best thing we can do is cause enough gridlock to force them to do the reasonable thing.

Panthera Tigris
October 19, 2006, 02:00 AM
I pretty much have the same opinions and ideas as Scurtis. I'd point out however that the majority of people who bother to vote either vote just to keep the other party from winning, or they actually vote because they agree with the ideas the party espouses. And like it or not, there are a large number of people in this country who are against guns and want them banned. There's no easy way to reach these people, and it's going to be hard to change them.

I know a guy who claims to be Libertarian who told me in an email tonight he'll vote for Hillary if she runs! :eek:

Democrats I know kill me because in one breath they condemn owning guns, saying we don't need them, and in the next breath they complain about the government taking away our freedoms. :rolleyes:

liberalgunnut
October 19, 2006, 10:20 AM
This is way more complicated than Republicans = Good and Democrats = Bad. The fact is that our rights are being eroded from both the far right and the far left. Political parties are driven by activists and not many people get passionate about being centrist or reasonable. The only way to keep the extreme members of either party to run amok is to limit their power. The only way to do that is to make sure that there is a balance of power between the right and the left that forces them to meet in the middle and compromise.

While I believe that we may fall into slightly different political beliefs I couldn't agree more. But I cannot recal any bill ever passed in modern times that infringed more upon our constitutional rights as the Military Commissions Act. I'm a democrat...and probably like you (whoever you support), there are rare times when my party makes me proud of their actions. The problems the extreme right and left have created remind of something my Italian born and rasied mother always used to say to me... 'in American the government does not respect the people, when that happened in Europe they would violently overthrow them, then the would respect the people again until they forgot their lesson'.

The only reason that democrats are looking good to the majority at the moment is because the republicans are looking so bad (pretty much the opposite of 1994).

liberalgunnut
October 19, 2006, 10:24 AM
I know a guy who claims to be Libertarian who told me in an email tonight he'll vote for Hillary if she runs!

I'm a democrat and if Hillary is running I will either vote for a republican if they are decent or nobody. I would be a happy guy if I never heard the names Hillary or Bush again.

:banghead: so you can imagine... I'm not so happy now:(

scurtis_34471
October 19, 2006, 11:14 AM
While Hillary could win the Democratic nomination, there is no way she could win the general election. They need to run someone from the center and she is anything but. IMHO, the one Democrat I would actually vote for has absolutely no chance of winning. He is a true centrist and a stand-up guy. Unfortunately, he has less charisma than a bowl of oatmeal. No, Joe Lieberman could never win the nomination.

I personally hope that John McCain runs and wins next time around. I am a huge fan and can think of nobody I would rather see in the White House.

BIGJACK
October 19, 2006, 11:18 AM
Let us also remember that the Brady's, the lady who engineered the Brady Bill, were Republicans. :cuss: :banghead:

Use your head and vote the person, not he party.:fire: :D

Lone_Gunman
October 19, 2006, 11:19 AM
I personally hope that John McCain runs and wins next time around. I am a huge fan and can think of nobody I would rather see in the White House.

I am curious what you like about McCain.

He was behind Campaign Finance Reform, which clearly limits political speech which should have been protected by the First Amendment.

He also supports the Assault Weapons Ban and closing the "gun show loop hole".

I think a McCain presidency would be disastrous for civil rights.

orangelo
October 19, 2006, 11:20 AM
You are aware that McCain was one of the authors and sponsors of the bill that decides it's ok for congress to abridge free speech and press 60 days before an election right?

Since that stinker of a bill is now 'constitutional' law they can amend it to say no one can criticize any candidate 1460 days(4 years) before an election by a simple 51%-49% majority vote.

McCain, Guiliani, Bloomberg and every democrat can all drop dead.

longeyes
October 19, 2006, 11:25 AM
The only "gridlock" I see coming for America is the kind we have seen, tragically, in places like Iraq. We are losing our civil liberties at the hands of scoundrels and poltroons from both sides of the aisle. Both Parties are out of control and flying the flag of lawlessness. Both overreach and the American people end up suffering because of it. I think we have a very few years to right this ship before we are torn apart by internal forces and left naked to our external enemies. I still think it is even-money there won't be an '08 Election. Crazy? We'll see. If there is one, it will be largely meaningless, given the amount of ignorance, apathy, brainwashing, and voter fraud. Suffrage means nothing when the civic soul is unsound at the core.

longeyes
October 19, 2006, 11:29 AM
It doesn't matter what "the five-year plan" is. We already know what the Left is after. We've known that all along. The issue is whether we permit our rights to be torn from us--by any faction, by any Party. It was always about fighting for the rights of free men, and the issue today is figuring out how to do that and where. I have believed for some time that preserving the Union is futile; unifying America in the current state means a socialist America in a few years. We will need to shore up what is left of the American Project and protect it.

liberalgunnut
October 19, 2006, 11:50 AM
I think a McCain presidency would be disastrous for civil rights.

He certainly would be better for civil rights than the current administration.

scurtis is right... Hillary would never win. That is assuming that the right doesn't do something really stupid and put up someone like Frist or Allen. I think it's McCain's to lose.

Joe Demko
October 19, 2006, 11:52 AM
Absolutely right, Longeyes, absolutely right.

xd9fan
October 19, 2006, 01:04 PM
Hmm let's see

Republicans: Big Gov't, lets me keep my guns

Are you aware that Bush was publically willing to sign another Assalt weapons ban?
Are you aware that EVERY piece of "common sense" Gun control laws that are on the books on HAS Republican votes all over them.

What you have left is myth. Enjoy.

Malone LaVeigh
October 19, 2006, 01:06 PM
Gun control is just the bogeyman that one so-called party uses to corral a certain group it thinks it owns. Same as the other "party" uses abortion. Every election cycle, the same poor, dumb fools are hoodwinked again.

I've said it here before, but it bears repeating. The Dems and Reps are tag-teaming us out of all of all of our rights. Most of us won't wake up till it's too late.

kengrubb
October 19, 2006, 03:41 PM
Are you aware that Bush was publically willing to sign another Assalt weapons ban?
Which simply proves the issue isn't purely black and white. All Democrats, all bad, all the time on the 2A is no more correct than is all Republicans, all good, all the time on the 2A. I see the issue in one shade of very light gray and one shade of very dark gray.

With that outta the way, it was a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat majority with 40 some odd Republicans helping in the House (6 in the Senate) that passed HR3355. The Democrats didn't do it alone, but they clearly had the majority opinion on the issue of the AWB.

It was a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican majority that didn't renew the AWB.

Are you aware that EVERY piece of "common sense" Gun control laws that are on the books on HAS Republican votes all over them.
True, and as is the case with trends in crime, one needs to look at the trends in gun control.

Some believe the Democrats are improving on the 2A and thus deserve a chance. One name I often hear kicked up is Gov. Schweitzer (D-MT). I think he's pretty rock solid on the 2A, but he's in Montana. It's easy to be a pro-gunner from any party in Montana. I would add former Gov. Paul Patton (D-KY). The NRA endorsed neither him nor his Republican opponent because the NRA rated both of them as A+ and said to Kentuckians vote other issues in the race because on guns ya cain't lose. Patton signed Shall Issue CCW into law, and I believe several improvements including one of the best reciprocity policies among the Shall Issue states.

Some also attempt to flip the issue about and claim it's very difficult to be a pro-gunner from places like New York or California, just explaining away folks like Schumer, Feinstein, et al.

Using GOA's candidate ratings [as NRA's are often criticized for being too Republican], a different picture emerges in looking at the House races in New York, California and Illinois--arguably the three most antigun states, and certainly the largest of the antigun states.
http://www.gunowners.org/votetb06.htm

Of the rated candidates in California, Democrats have a 0.3 GPA while Republicans have a 3.08 GPA.

Of the rated candidates in New York, Democrats also have a 0.3 GPA while the Republicans have a 3.25 GPA.

Of the rated candidates in Illinois, Democrats have a 0.43 GPA while the Republicans have a 2.57 GPA.

Clearly there is a big divide between D's and R's on the issue in the House. That's also true in the Senate, but I didn't crunch those numbers. Just skimmed 'em in the past, and the party divide was evident.

liberalgunnut
October 19, 2006, 03:55 PM
We are losing our civil liberties at the hands of scoundrels and poltroons from both sides of the aisle. Both Parties are out of control and flying the flag of lawlessness.

don't forget who controls the agenda... hell the left cannot even get microphones for a meeting in the basement these days and they can barely even get a room in the basement. It's awfully convinent to blame both parties for this but if you have no check (repub house, senate, exec) you have no balance. Interestingly when the right controls everything they both stink... when the left controls... the left stinks. that may be balance where you come from... but not in my parts. It seems to me that the stench (in this congress) is coming for the right side of the isle... the left isn't allowed to use the facilities. :rolleyes:

but then again... I'm in Oregon...

progunner1957
October 20, 2006, 12:36 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if the people who say "Gridlock is good" are not right after all...

That's a sad commentary on our so-called "leaders." It seems that both parties are leading us, alright - into chains.

Biker
October 20, 2006, 12:41 PM
You nailed it, Progunner. We need a political enema at this point in time.
You can't polish a turd.

Biker

longeyes
October 20, 2006, 01:02 PM
Gridlock's not the right term to describe what's coming. Slow-motion nervous breakdown may be.

You can't play a game when no one follows the rulebook and a lot of people don't even know there is one.

The "enema" will come when Americans acknowledge, perhaps as soon as the coming of the next Presidency, that the nation has not only become ungovernable but that it's barely a nation at all.

GoRon
October 20, 2006, 01:04 PM
Punish the Republicans by letting people who are even more dangerous to our liberty get into office?

Politics is a game of inches. Let the Democrats get back in power and we lose liberty in yards not inches.

Even those who claim we are losing liberty under the Republicans say "can you imagine how the Democrats will use these new laws against us when they get the Presidency?"

My question is if the Democrats are going to use these new laws in even worse fashion than the Republicans then why would you want to give them any power at all? Punish the Republicans by giving a worse set of actors more authority?

That don't make no sense.

Joe Demko
October 20, 2006, 01:14 PM
That don't make no sense.

I pictured you as Pete from O Brother Where Art Thou? when I read this...

But actually it does make sense if you look at it this way: The guns we all obsess over are supposed to be for overthrowing a Tyrannical Regime®, right? History shows us that people, typically, will not act until a situation becomes intolerable. Under either Party, the situation will become intolerable; but it will become intolerable more quickly under D than R. Hence, the Inevitable Slaughter of theTyrants® and ensuing Golden Age of Freedom® will come more quickly if we punish the R's by voting for anybody else now.

Biker
October 20, 2006, 01:18 PM
Yes GoRon, punish the Pubs and *show* them that they can't take our votes for granted.
An inch or a foot, I'm still being ripped off. I'm not taking it anymore. Do the job I hired you for or you're fired.
End of story.

Biker

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 02:14 PM
My thoughts (as posted in this thread with a slight edit for on-topicness http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229020):


The Republicans aren't about liberty any more than the Democrats are, they just want a different piece of the People's Pie than the opposition does.


We're given a choice between one side infringing on our liberties and another side doing the same, just in different areas or ways. We get scare attempts crying about what the Democrats would do if they were in charge with all of the power the government has these days, one has to wonder if the people that make these arguments understand just who it was that gave the government that power they're so afraid of when the other side has it in the first place.

The other popular position is that we should try and influence or change one of the parties and vote for them rather than to abandon them as a whole and vote for the party that actually supports our beliefs based on each party's likelihood of winning becasue only the Repubs and the Dems have a chance at winning.

That's like telling your best friend to marry the chick that won't let him out of the house without her with him, makes him go to the church that she chooses, invades his privacy and snoops through his mail, listens to his phone calls and reads his e-mails just because she says she won't make him get rid of his guns because it's better than the bisexual chick that wants to spend all of his money while she doesn't work, won't let him hunt or hike and would make him get rid of his guns. To me, that's not a choice, that's a suicide pact with an idiot.

Me, I'll stay single as long as I have to in order to find the girl that respects the both of us enough to recognize that we're both free individuals in a partnership and values that as much as or above anything else. Fortunately enough for me, I’ve already found her, and even if she never agrees to marry me, I'd rather spend my time in a fruitless effort towards freedom than a successful endeavor of servitude.


When exercising the right to vote in this country became more about picking a winner than being active in the political process and making our voices heard, we started going downhill faster than any speedometer was capable of calculating, and the Democratic and Republican bookies are cashing in at the track and laughing all the way to the bank while we sit with our programs in hand like imbeciles with empty pockets cheering our horse on long after we’ve run out of money to make a bet.

crunker
October 20, 2006, 03:14 PM
Show the fools this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkfmcof6SqI) and then ask them why semiautomatic, high-power, high capacity handguns should be banned to that man who was eaten by lions in front of his children.

Malone LaVeigh
October 20, 2006, 03:36 PM
We keep going around this circle. I happen to sincerely believe that we're losing more rights, and faster, under this administration than we ever lost them under a Democrat, at least in my life time. The BIG exception being gun rights. I just wish I could be a single-issue voter, but I really care about things like legal protections and the 1st Amendment. Not thast I for a second believe the Democrats are all hunky-dory on those issues, but I believe their opposition to Bush will lead them to expose admin abuses and corruption. I also have spent too much time as a parent to believe that dishonesty should be rewarded.

Daps
October 20, 2006, 04:06 PM
That video really doesn't prove why we need those weapons, proves more of why you should leave mother nature alone when you're in that type of environment you become the prey.

I get the point you're trying to make but I dont think that video supports it.

As for the topic both main parties are crap. The Dems have some blow hards but I dont think they'll try anything most saw what happened from passing the AWB, it's all about staying in power and getting your slice of that pork barrel pie ummmm yummy. You'll hear some cry for AWB II but I dont think it'll fly, the they'll take your guns IMO is a scare tactic, what about the rights we're losing now? Why should one be more important that the other. Washington needs cleaned out on both sides. It's not Repub vs Dem its US(the people) vs THEM(.GOV)

Bartholomew Roberts
October 20, 2006, 06:20 PM
While I would certainly agree that the Republicans haven't been very libertarian with their regard for civil rights lately, it seems that every time I wade through L&P there is someone grossly misconstruing what they did - which really isn't necessary given what they have been doing. If you have to blow your point out of proportion to make it, that should tell you something about the point you are making.


5th: Suspension of Habeus Corpus and no access to attorney, tortured or otherwise intimidated to talk in ways that can incriminate one's self.

Suspension of habeas corpus is limited to people picked up on the battlefield.

6th: Held indefinitely without trial. There goes that one.

Who? The only guy I can think of is Padilla who was held for several years before the courts finally said "Yes, you have to give him a trial." I agree it is pretty bad the court had to make that point; but are any other American citizens currently being detained without trial?

7th: No right to trial by jury if Bush or his people so decide. Military tribunal.

This only applied to aliens who are ALSO unlawful enemy combatants. Don't want to lose your right to trial by jury? All you have to do is not renounce your American citizenship and then conduct war in a manner at odds with Geneva III.

8th: Cruel and unusual punishment? Hm. Waterboarding? Wonder when they'll start doing it to American citizens, too. Or have they?

Actually they've been waterboarding guys at SERE school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding) since I joined the military in 1993. Generally it is done when a student does something that would have gotten him killed in the real world. Is it fun? Not from what I've heard; but how cruel can it be given the fact it is done to our own guys?

The Supreme Court Justices are a crap shoot, no matter who picks them.

Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Reagan, and voted with the liberals more often than the conservatives.

Sandra Day O'Connor was THE swing vote on several key votes seeking to reign in the growth of the central government by giving more power to the states. She was a key vote in gun-related decisions like Printz v. United States and Lopez that overturned sections of the Brady bill AND established more power in the states. She even voted in favor of the states on Gonzales v. Raich when Scalia couldn't stomach allowing states to set their own laws regarding marijuana. To say that O'Connor voted more often with the liberals than the conservatives pretty much shows you don't follow many decisions (if any) or that the ones you do follow are limited only to abortion (which is one of the few places where O'Connor bucked the conservative wing).

After George Bush appointed Harriet Miers, I have little confidence that he is really putting much thought into his picks.

And what exactly do you know about Miers that suggests that? As much as you knew about the entire judicial career of O'Connor?

Malone LaVeigh
October 20, 2006, 06:54 PM
NineseveN, I missed your post above the first time through. The horseracing metaphor is so good, and so well written, I wish I had thought it up myself.

:cool:

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 07:51 PM
NineseveN, I missed your post above the first time through. The horseracing metaphor is so good, and so well written, I wish I had thought it up myself.

Feel free to borrow it, but I must caution you, it might make people angry when you use it in an argument like this. ;)

I actually considered making it my signature.:cool:

GoRon
October 20, 2006, 08:23 PM
When exercising the right to vote in this country became more about picking a winner than being active in the political process and making our voices heard, we started going downhill faster than any speedometer was capable of calculating, and the Democratic and Republican bookies are cashing in at the track and laughing all the way to the bank while we sit with our programs in hand like imbeciles with empty pockets cheering our horse on long after we’ve run out of money to make a bet.

If that is what you believe the I am sorry to say you will never have any voice in our government and you will never have anyone representing you.

You are and will be constrained to the fringes of the political debate.
You will not have influence in either party.

Balddragn
October 20, 2006, 09:15 PM
When the two parties started acting more alike than different, the thought of voting for one or the other became more and more repugnant. In my view I would have to be a brainless sheep to vote for either one. I'd rather be accused of being a dreamer, and hope that others will vote because they think it a good choice and not just because they think it’s a winner.

Your vote, your choice. Spend it like a free willed intelligent person or go with the flock.

Marshall
October 20, 2006, 09:26 PM
I'll be voting Republican, easy call. I couldn't change a single mind on this forum so I'll just leave it at that.

GoRon
October 21, 2006, 02:21 AM
In my view I would have to be a brainless sheep to vote for either one.

I'm old enough now to where the sky has been falling for quite a while.

While I don't endorse every thing that is/has taken place during this administration this much I know.

Stomping your feet, taking your toys and going home doesn't get anything done.

You just won't have a seat at the party.

The democrats have a hard and fast record of usurption of property rights, antagonism toward second amendment/self defense rights and a propensity to be paralyzed when dealing with the evil men do here and abroad.

"Punishing" the Republicans by putting the feckless Democrats in any position of power is done at great risk, in both domestic and foriegn affairs.

NineseveN
October 21, 2006, 12:36 PM
If that is what you believe the I am sorry to say you will never have any voice in our government and you will never have anyone representing you.

You are and will be constrained to the fringes of the political debate.
You will not have influence in either party.

Um, okay, the local politicos around here know me, sometimes by name, sometimes just by my face, because I contact them often enough. The Democrats, Repubs, whoever, just becasue I didn't vote for them, doesn't mean they don't represent me.

But if what you said was truly the case...if I have to choose between the straight party lines of the would-be-republican party or the liberals, why would I want either of them wholly representing me anyway since I don't agree with the majority of either party's actions or the party line?

I vote my conscience, you guys can fester over picking a winner and hopefully feel good about yourselves cause you ra-ra'd the winning team. Me, I'm glad I didn't vote for GW this last election, and I'm equally as glad that I didn't vote for Kerry either.

Marshall
October 21, 2006, 12:45 PM
Me, I'm glad I didn't vote for GW this last election, and I'm equally as glad that I didn't vote for Kerry either.

Did you vote?

NineseveN
October 21, 2006, 11:54 PM
Did I vote? A freak occurrence rendered my voting ability inoperable for the first time since I'd been of voting age. Long, stupid story that doesn't involve the law or anything like that...

I was hoping Badnarik would have gotten a larger share of the vote, and I was still a registered (R) at the time and really didn't dig into the (L) until after that election. I knew about Badnarik and I liked a lot of what he had to say, but I was still in the "a vote for anyone but a Republican is a vote for the Democrat" mindset, and it wasn't until I reflected on what GW and the (R)'s and the (D)'s were all about that I really started using my noodle instead of toeing the Republican line.

Before the incident, en route to the polls, I'd made a tough decision not to vote for GW because I didn't think either party was all that different in the grand scheme of liberty and I was afraid of what a zealous "Big Government Republican" with what I felt were honest intentions coupled with a misguided mindset could do to this country. Badnarik would have gotten my vote...which would have done absolutely nothing practical to change the landscape of that election of course, except to put my support behind the candidate that I agree with most...IMHO, the morally sound decision.

I did vote for GW in 2000 and I felt good about that vote at the time.

Green Lantern
October 22, 2006, 12:46 AM
I think Bartholomew did a very good job of putting some TRUTH to the spin "the Constitution has been gutted!"

I know that I haven't had any of my rights infringed - at the least in any way where I personally and knowingly experienced harm from - since 2000.

And I ALSO know that if the Democrats get Congress back, just glimpsing at the Original Post, that if the ones that hold the power have their way, I WILL have my rights infringed in ways I will certianly experience!

Still depending on where you live (NYC anyone?) "straight R's on EVERYTHING" is NOT the answer. Do your homework, or turn to 2A groups like NRA or GOA to see who THEY endorse!

All I can say is that when I get home from work on the 7th, I'm probably gonna "tranq" myself so that I don't wake up until after all the votes are counted! :uhoh:

DunedinDragon
October 22, 2006, 10:44 AM
I've seen a couple of articles recently about how the Dem's are avoiding the gun control issue like it's the plague. They realize it's a losing issue for them. That doesn't mean the party line is any different, it just means they don't want to expose that party line.

As for me, I'm not completely happy with what the republicans have done, but I am more fearful of what the democrats might do. My vote is straight "R's", but in actuality I'm voting AGAINST the dems and the media with my vote.

The dems have done nothing but throw mud, complain, call names and gripe but have yet to expose ONE SINGLE IDEA of how they would solve the problems they are griping about. They have in effect said, "vote for us because we're not republicans." They are afraid to talk about their plans because they can't afford to alienate the far-left-wing fringe of the party by supporting gun control, or how they would handle the interrogation of war prisoners, or how they would manage the balance between intelligence gathering and the right to privacy, or how they would manage the illegal alien problem and border security. That's not leadership so my vote is to let them know that I don't vote for people simply because they gripe and complain. I vote for people that have an approach and a plan on how to make things better, and I'm not willing to trust them unless they can tell me how they intend to do it. We KNOW what the republicans will do...we have NO CLUE what the dems will do to address these issues.

They need to understand they are no longer the "voice of the people", they have become the voice of the radical left with people like Pelosi and Harry Reid. If they lose the house this time around when they've had TREMENDOUS help from the press they will have no choice but to re-evaluate their party's basic approach. They are NOT the party of JFK and FDR anymore. They are the party of Clinton, Reid and Pelosi....and that's VERY scary.

Ask yourself this. Does the quote, "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country" sound like something a democrat would say, or a republican would say? I'm not really voting against the democrats as much as I am voting against the tin-foil hat wearing leftists that have taken over the party, and in effect reduced us to a single party system.

I also want to use my vote to point out what morons the press and the media are. They focus all their attention on the Foley scandal and talk about how the republicans are in trouble and don't balance that with the fact that NONE of the democratic leadership even has a platform, much less one that appeals to the vast majority of the people in this country. Hopefully by helping prove the press wrong in their projections of the dems taking over congress people will finally be able to see how absolutely non-credible they are and that they are nothing more than a propoganda machine for the radical left, Osama Bin Laden and and the rest of the criminally insane.

Mayo
October 22, 2006, 11:00 AM
Why can't you just vote AGAINST the LIBERALS?;)

progunner1957
October 22, 2006, 12:09 PM
"Punishing" the Republicans by putting the feckless Democrats in any position of power is done at great risk, in both domestic and foriegn affairs.
+ 1000!!
I've seen a couple of articles recently about how the Dem's are avoiding the gun control issue like it's the plague. They realize it's a losing issue for them. That doesn't mean the party line is any different, it just means they don't want to expose that party line.
Exactly. Has the Democratic National Party ripped the antigun/civilian disarmament plank from their platform and thrown it into a bonfire? NO they have not.

In 2004, they dressed John Kerry up like a bird hunter. That didn't work, so they changed tactics. They are not singing and dancing for civilian disarmament beore the election - so what???
That means nothing more than the fact that they learned from their past miscalculations.

What they say - or don't say - before the election means nothing once they are in power, especially with regard to our right to arms.

NineseveN
October 22, 2006, 01:00 PM
They need to understand they are no longer the "voice of the people", they have become the voice of the radical left with people like Pelosi and Harry Reid. If they lose the house this time around when they've had TREMENDOUS help from the press they will have no choice but to re-evaluate their party's basic approach.

Now that's a very good reason to vote against them...but then, how do we get the Repubs to do the same thing? Vote liberal in the next election cycle?

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manedwolf
5th: Suspension of Habeus Corpus and no access to attorney, tortured or otherwise intimidated to talk in ways that can incriminate one's self.

Suspension of habeas corpus is limited to people picked up on the battlefield.

Quote:
6th: Held indefinitely without trial. There goes that one.

Who? The only guy I can think of is Padilla who was held for several years before the courts finally said "Yes, you have to give him a trial." I agree it is pretty bad the court had to make that point; but are any other American citizens currently being detained without trial?

Quote:
7th: No right to trial by jury if Bush or his people so decide. Military tribunal.

This only applied to aliens who are ALSO unlawful enemy combatants. Don't want to lose your right to trial by jury? All you have to do is not renounce your American citizenship and then conduct war in a manner at odds with Geneva III.


Of course you seemed to leave out the part that one man gets to define who is a enemy combatant/threat to America... which pretty much destorys your position. There is nothing in the act that says if the president felt that gun owners were a threat to the US he couldn't decide that they were all enemy combatants.

You actually pointed out Padilla... and then went on to say it's limited to aliens? you seem a bit confused. I saw nowhere in the Act that limits it to aliens. If I'm incorrect, I'd love for you to show me the source on that.

thanks.

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 01:41 PM
Now that's a very good reason to vote against them...but then, how do we get the Repubs to do the same thing? Vote liberal in the next election cycle?

works for me. :)

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 01:43 PM
In 2004, they dressed John Kerry up like a bird hunter.

I'd prefer to go hunting with him than Cheney... :eek:

Malone LaVeigh
October 22, 2006, 01:55 PM
That doesn't mean the party line is any different, it just means they don't want to expose that party line.

Well, that no doubt has a lot of truth. But I remember when southern Democrats began to soft-peddle their racial beliefs because it was no longer effective to appeal to racism (that perogative was taken over by the southern Republicans.) In a short period of time, the Democrats actually became the party more favorable to civil rights (e.g. Johnson). I think if the Dems continue to soft-peddle the gun control issue, eventually it willl become limited to a smaller and smaller fringe in the party and in the political landscape in general. At least that's my hope, and why I am leaning more and more to supporting Dems that come around on the issue.

Anyway, I recon this horse is about dead, flayed, and decomposed by now.

Master Blaster
October 22, 2006, 02:13 PM
As for me, I'm not completely happy with what the republicans have done, but I am more fearful of what the democrats might do. My vote is straight "R's", but in actuality I'm voting AGAINST the dems and the media with my vote.

The dems have done nothing but throw mud, complain, call names and gripe but have yet to expose ONE SINGLE IDEA of how they would solve the problems they are griping about. They have in effect said, "vote for us because we're not republicans." They are afraid to talk about their plans because they can't afford to alienate the far-left-wing fringe of the party by supporting gun control, or how they would handle the interrogation of war prisoners, or how they would manage the balance between intelligence gathering and the right to privacy, or how they would manage the illegal alien problem and border security. That's not leadership so my vote is to let them know that I don't vote for people simply because they gripe and complain. I vote for people that have an approach and a plan on how to make things better, and I'm not willing to trust them unless they can tell me how they intend to do it. We KNOW what the republicans will do...we have NO CLUE what the dems will do to address these issues.



Thats how I feel, but the thing here is that the Democrats voted for all of the constitutional abuses, every last one of them, so where exactly were their principals then???

As far as corruption Goes Harry Reid just got CAUGHT taking a $1 million bribe from a lobbiest, and land developer in the state of Nevada.

Yet the media has conveniantly let that go in favor of trumpeting Foley emails, at least Foley had the decentcy to resign, dont hold your breath for Reid to resign or for him to be held accountable for that $1 million BRIBE he took.

SO do you all think there is room at GITMO for 4 million NRA members if the democrats win????

River Wraith
October 22, 2006, 02:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Bartholomew did a very good job of putting some TRUTH to the spin "the Constitution has been gutted!"

I know that I haven't had any of my rights infringed - at the least in any way where I personally and knowingly experienced harm from - since 2000.

And I ALSO know that if the Democrats get Congress back, just glimpsing at the Original Post, that if the ones that hold the power have their way, I WILL have my rights infringed in ways I will certianly experience!


You're right on that. I figure GOA has the best information on where the candidates stand on the issues if you need to do some research.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 22, 2006, 02:52 PM
Of course you seemed to leave out the part that one man gets to define who is a enemy combatant/threat to America... which pretty much destorys your position. There is nothing in the act that says if the president felt that gun owners were a threat to the US he couldn't decide that they were all enemy combatants.

I left out that part because it is nowhere in the legislation you are discussing (referring to the Military Commissions Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109j35N6E:e617:)). The decision of whether someone is an unlawful alien combatant belongs to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal which is a military court.

Contrary to your assertion that the President can simply declare gunowners to be enemy combatants, the act requires several things to find someone an unlawful enemy combatant:

First, you must find that they are not a lawful enemy combatant. This is defined under the bill and Geneva III as:

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

if you don't meet any of these categories, then you must have engaged in hostilities against the United States or supported those who do (Sec. 948(a)(1)(A)).

Finally, because the suspension of habeas corpus applies only to ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants, American citizens who are declared to be unlawful enemy combatants can still contest their status in Federal court (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).

You actually pointed out Padilla... and then went on to say it's limited to aliens? you seem a bit confused.

I believe you are the one who is confused. let me explain the timeline.

1) Padilla gets arrested and is detained without trial.
2) Lawyers challenge the government with writs of habeas corpus for Padilla and Hamdi (another American citizen, except Hamdi was picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan)
3) After several years of wrangling, Padilla and Hamdi both have hearings before lower courts
4) The Supreme Court issues the Hamdi decision in 2004 saying that even unlawful enemy combatants must be given habeas corpus if they are American citizens.
5) The Supreme Court further expands habeas corpus to alien unlawful enemy combatants in the Hamdan decision citing as part of the opinion that Congress had not authorized the President such power.
6) In response, Congress passes the Military Commissions Act which authorizes such power for ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS.

So you see Padilla happened prior to this legislation and really has no bearing on this legislation since Padilla would still be entitled to pursue habeas corpus in Federal court even if this legislation had been passed. Clear enough for you?

I saw nowhere in the Act that limits it to aliens. If I'm incorrect, I'd love for you to show me the source on that.

It is tough to see what you don't look for. Here is the text to the Military Commissions Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109j35N6E:e617:).

"`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter. "

That is the ENTIRE language describing who is subject to military commissions. As you can clearly see, the very first adjective used to describe who is subject to a military commission is the word "alien"

Is there anything else where I need to hold your hand and walk you through the language you obviously didn't read step by step?

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 04:48 PM
As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. [Act sec. 6(a)(3)(A)]

you missed this.

Wesker
October 22, 2006, 04:52 PM
Ok, but where is the right's plan to preserve our gun rights. All Bush has done is not hurt us too much by doing nothing about the 2A.

I'm worried that one day one Democratic president will take to heard the Supreme Court ruling that the 2A does not apply to private citizens.

What then?

Bartholomew Roberts
October 22, 2006, 05:22 PM
the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions you missed this.

I didn't miss it - it has no relevance to what we were discussing earlier because it applies only to the Geneva Conventions. United States citizens do not rely on the Geneva Conventions for their rights.

Silver Bullet
October 22, 2006, 06:14 PM
Gridlock is not good. There is no chance to roll back gun restrictions with gridlock.

Silver Bullet
October 22, 2006, 06:15 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens vs John Roberts and Samual Alito, no contest.
I agree.

Silver Bullet
October 22, 2006, 06:17 PM
Are you aware that EVERY piece of "common sense" Gun control laws that are on the books on HAS Republican votes all over them.
I would counter this with this quote from Bartholomew Roberts:

If you still have all of your guns, it is certainly not because of Democrats.

Let's take a look at federal gun control legislation, shall we?

1934 National Firearms Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President.

1968 Gun Control Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - proposed by Republican, the one gun control provision added (closing the NFA registry to civilians) is added by a Democrat controlled House

1994 Brady Law - proposed by Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

1994 Assault Weapons Ban - proposed by a Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

Let's look at some of the past bills supported by recent Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:

Kerry co-sponsored S.1431 - the bill expanding the ban on semi-auto weapons to include guns such as the Remington 1187 he was photographed with on the campaign trail.

Kerry voted twice to kill the CMP. If he doesn't trust you with 1903 bolt-actions and Garands, what does he trust you with?

Kerry voted in March 2004 to extend the existing semi-auto ban.

When Kerry mentor and top Democrat Ted Kennedy stood up in february 2004 to introduce his bill saying:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." (Page S1634 of the Congressional Record, February 26, 2004)

John Kerry voted YES to ban .30-30 and other centerfire rifle ammo as armor-piercing.

Of course, all of that is from 2004 - shall we look at current gun control legislation sponsored by Democrats in Congress to see what they have planned for us in the future? Shall we look to Democrat controlled New Orleans in the wake of Katrina for an answer? Should we look to the new wave of weapons banned in California every year?

Better yet, in the interests of brevity, why don't you just list for us all the pro-gun legislation introduced by Democrats this year?

We have all read the same Dem strategy paper advanced by Americans For Gun Safety that basically tries to repackage the old Democratic gun control agenda as a "gun safety issue" while at the same time being less openly hostile to gun owners (I.e. "I support the Second Amendment; but you should still be registered, licensed and tracked like sex offenders when you are allowed to own guns at all"). The Dems need a REAL pro-gun strategy if they want pro-gun votes.

Silver Bullet
October 22, 2006, 06:18 PM
And if you want something more recent, how about the Senate vote on the Gun Industry Shield that was voted on last year. I count Rs and Ds as follows:

Voting Republicans in favor of the Shield:
50 to 2, or 96.15%.

Voting Democrats in favor of the Shield:
14 to 29, or 32.56%.

Does that seem like gun-friendly Democrats to you ? Does that not make it clear who the enemy is in 2006 ? And in 2008 ?


And even more recently, the following 16 senators voted against H.R. 5013 to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during an emergency or major disaster:

D. Akaka (D-HI), B. Boxer (D-CA), H. Clinton (D-NY), C. Dodd (D-CT), D. Durbin, (D-IL), D. Feinstein (D-CA), T. Harkin (D-IA), D. Inouye (D-HI), E. Kennedy (D-MA), F. Lautenberg (D-NJ), C. Levin (D-MI), R. Menendez (D-NJ), B. Mikulski (D-MD), J. Reed (D-RI), P. Sarbanes (D-MD), C. Schumer (D-NY).

Do you Detect any pattern ?

DunedinDragon
October 22, 2006, 06:25 PM
Now that's a very good reason to vote against them...but then, how do we get the Repubs to do the same thing? Vote liberal in the next election cycle?


Nope. You simply replace your Repub representative during the primary for one more to your liking.

Green Lantern
October 22, 2006, 06:31 PM
Some people elsewhere are trying to claim that the content of the OP is a HOAX....

"Because Sarah Brady HERSELF debunked it!" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh, you mean the same Sarah Brady who must have Ok'd the name change from Handgun Control Inc to sound less "bad for gun owners?" :mad:

Working for the same cause that wants the antis to SHUT UP about gun control....until AFTER they win the elections? :fire:

The anti-RKBA crowd are MASTERS of deceit and trickery! They'll say what they NEED to say (and deny saying some things they wish that hadn't got leaked to the public! ;) ) to gain power, THEN they'll "unleash the dragon" on EVERY American Gun Owner! :cuss:

DunedinDragon
October 22, 2006, 06:38 PM
Quote:
I saw nowhere in the Act that limits it to aliens. If I'm incorrect, I'd love for you to show me the source on that. ?


It is tough to see what you don't look for. Here is the text to the Military Commissions Act.

.....

Is there anything else where I need to hold your hand and walk you through the language you obviously didn't read step by step?

It's not like it would do you any good. Liberals would much prefer to convey US constitutional rights upon the radical muslims that have sworn to kill us by arguing they want to protect some hypothetical victim. Heck, they'd prefer to give those poor, midunderstood jihadists more rights than most Americans have..like free access to a lawyer.

I'm sure Osama, Kim Jon Il and the rest of the criminally insane are quite thrilled to see the libs are over here helping protect and promote their interests. It gives them MUCH more time to plan their next attack.

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 06:59 PM
Section 948a(1) defines an unlawful enemy combatant as

"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces; or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Section 948c of 10 U.S.C., as added by the Act, states, "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - with "alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States". The Act does not specify any provisions for trying unlawful enemy combatants who may be American citizens. There is disagreement over whether the Act's provisions could be applied to them as well [citation needed]- since 10 U.S.C. sec. 948c does not expressly exclude the possibility..

just curious... given that I'm obviously and idiot :) what is the definition of materially supporting hostilities, voting democratic? and given that one man has the right to designate the "tribunal" one must assume that it's a fair and balanced tribunal, right?

By the way, you put up a great argument.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 22, 2006, 07:20 PM
just curious... given that I'm obviously and idiot what is the definition of materially supporting hostilities, voting democratic? and given that one man has the right to designate the "tribunal" one must assume that it's a fair and balanced tribunal, right?

Well, since only ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants are under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal under this act, it would probably be difficult for them to vote. You know being ALIENS and all. Or were you truly concerned that ALIENS voting Democratic might be in danger from this legislation? Do you see a pattern here in the information I am trying to convey to you?

There is disagreement over whether the Act's provisions could be applied to them as well [citation needed]- since 10 U.S.C. sec. 948c does not expressly exclude the possibility..

You see even if the President did have you arrested and declare you an unlawful enemy combatant for being a Democrat, you still have the right to dispute that status in a Federal court as an American citizen (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html)). I don't know who thinks there is a disagreement over this; but let's just ask the highest court in the land what they said on THIS SAME EXACT ISSUE:

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.

By the way, you put up a great argument.

My argument is mediocre. It just looks good in comparison because you don't know what you are talking about.

Dave R
October 22, 2006, 07:48 PM
Folks, this discussion has ranged far and wide. Let me remind you what's at stake in November.

If the Democrats take control of the House in November, Nancy Pelosi will likely be Speaker of the House. She is a GUN GRABBER OF THE WORST KIND.

If you want to vote Libertarian, Constitution, or Democrat in local elections, great. But DO NOT SEND DEMOCRATS TO CONGRESS OR THE SENATE IN NOVEMBER.

The Republicans deserve much of the criticism they are getting, but remember that the Republican-appointed representative to the UN Council on Small Arms has twice prevented that group from adopting a resolution condemning the private ownership of small arms, and had that reduced to a resolution condemning illegal use of small arms. Huge win. I doubt it could've happend with a Democrat-appointed rep.

And the many of us now have folding stocks and flash hiders that would've made felons of us in previous administrations. Small win.

DO NOT send Democrats to Congress or the Senate in November. Remember the big picture.

Silver Bullet
October 22, 2006, 07:50 PM
My argument is mediocre. It just looks good in comparison because you don't know what you are talking about
:D

Lone_Gunman
October 22, 2006, 07:55 PM
The Big Picture is that the Republicans:

Signed Campaign Finance Reform, which violates the 1st Amendment.
Signed Medicare Reform, which was the largest increase in welfare since LBJ.
Signed No Child Left Behind.
Signed the Patriot Act.
Created a quagmire in Iraq, with no plan other than "stay the course".
Allowed North Korea to go nuclear, despite talking big about defense.
Are unwilling to secure our borders and control the illegal alien problem.

Gun rights are low on the Democrats agenda at this point, and I think balancing power in Washington might be a good idea now.

Dave R
October 22, 2006, 08:08 PM
Gun rights are low on the Democrats agenda at this pointAt THIS point? What point? Until November? How sure are you?

GoRon
October 22, 2006, 08:13 PM
Signed Campaign Finance Reform, which violates the 1st Amendment.
Signed Medicare Reform, which was the largest increase in welfare since LBJ.
Signed No Child Left Behind.
Signed the Patriot Act.
We would have got that and then some with Democrats in control.

Created a quagmire in Iraq, with no plan other than "stay the course".
Most likely Saddam would still be in power and it is doubtful that there would still be sanctions on them by now. The Taliban would still be in control most likely also.

Allowed North Korea to go nuclear, despite talking big about defense.
They were cheating almost right away under the "agreed framework" and they will tell any lie they have to to get their weapons. The big difference is the Republicans aren't buying into NK's load of crap.

Are unwilling to secure our borders and control the illegal alien problem.
The only reason we don't have a McCain/Kennedy bill as law is becouse the Republican House stopped it!! The only reason the White House agreed to a wall is because the Republicans demanded it!
It would be worse by far with the Democrats in office, it wouldn't even be an issue with them (other than providing full citizenship and a bunch of bennies for them).


Gun rights are low on the Democrats agenda at this point, and I think balancing power in Washington might be a good idea now.
Until they are back in power only. Then it is full steam ahead.

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 08:15 PM
btw: thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Your wisdom is only far exceeded by your politeness.

As I posted earlier, many leagl scholars have noted that the MCA does not specifically exclude US citizens. That said... if one is picked up, held with counsel indefinately (as the act allows)... how the hell can one dispute it in Federal court?

Lone_Gunman
October 22, 2006, 09:14 PM
We would have got that and then some with Democrats in control.

I could not disagree more.

If the Democrats had proposed any of that garbage, the Republicans would have raised so much cane that I don't think a consensus of any kind would have been reached. Even if the Democrats had gotten it through Congress, Bush would have been more likely to veto it, since it would have been Democrat-proposed crap, rather than Republican proposed crap. The Republicans are much better at stopping Democrats than Democrats are at stopping Republicans.

The Republican party has been hijacked, and has managed to pass more of the Democratic platform than the Democrats have been able to themselves. The Republicans are no longer a party of small government fiscal conservatives who want the government out of our lives. They now support big bureacracy, big spending, and intrusive government.

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 09:23 PM
The Republicans are much better at stopping Democrats than Democrats are at stopping Republicans.

as a dem... I couldn't agree more.

Silver Bullet
October 22, 2006, 09:28 PM
The Big Picture is that the Republicans:

Signed Campaign Finance Reform, which violates the 1st Amendment.
Signed Medicare Reform, which was the largest increase in welfare since LBJ.
Signed No Child Left Behind.
Signed the Patriot Act.
Created a quagmire in Iraq, with no plan other than "stay the course".
Allowed North Korea to go nuclear, despite talking big about defense.
Are unwilling to secure our borders and control the illegal alien problem.
The bigger picture is that the Dems would have been just as bad on non-RKBA issues, and much worse on RKBA issues.

Gun rights are low on the Democrats agenda at this point, ...
Can I get that in writing ? How do you know ?

Bartholomew Roberts
October 22, 2006, 09:29 PM
btw: thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Your wisdom is only far exceeded by your politeness.

A wise man wouldn't be having this conversation and I'm far more polite when I don't have spoonfeed people with information they could have easily discovered on their own instead of relying on me to be their personal fact checker. In fact, you could have discovered most of these points (as well as likely arguments I would be making) just by searching THR.

As I posted earlier, many leagl scholars have noted that the MCA does not specifically exclude US citizens.

Many legal scholars? What do you define as many? More than two? Why don't you just cut & paste their arguments instead? Twice now you have answered me with posts that have no bearing at all on what we are discussing and I get the feeling you haven't read any of the opinions of these legal scholars or you wouldn't be wasting my time with off-point arguments.

The main concern of some legal scholars has been that the bill defines "unlawful enemy combatant" broadly in a way that doesn't exclude citizens. The concern isn't that this strips habeas corpus rights; but rather that it creates a vaguely defined area. If you let someone stay at your house and it turns out he was an al-Quaeda agent, can you be defined as an "unlawful enemy combatant" because of this bill? If so, then the bill clearly conflicts with the Hamdi decision which says otherwise.

Every legal scholar I've read, even the ones who find this bill abhorrent, all agree that this does not remove habeas rights from citizens.

That said... if one is picked up, held with counsel indefinately (as the act allows)... how the hell can one dispute it in Federal court?

How the hell did Hamdan dispute it in Federal court? He wasn't even a citizen and he was captured on the battlefield. Yet he managed to gain access to our court system even as he was imprisoned in Guantanamo. Are you suggesting that the government will give terrorists access to our legal system; but when it comes to American citizens they will just ignore the Hamdi opinion and throw them in a hole with no mention? They better grab someone with no relatives or that is going to be one PR nightmare when comparisons are drawn.

Let's just assume that the administration will do what you claim. Is the government that will do that suddenly going to NOT do it because they don't have this bill? Is this bill the sole restraint on such a tyrannical government?

Created a quagmire in Iraq, with no plan other than "stay the course".

That would have happened regardless of who was in office... llest we forget (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 09:34 PM
The Taliban would still be in control most likely also.

The Taliban is currently returning to a position of strength, opium sales are way up, we have 1/7 the troops in Afghanistan (primarily Al Qeada) than Iraq, and Bill Frist (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html) is suggesting we include the taliban in the afghan government.


things are going great!:uhoh:

Lone_Gunman
October 22, 2006, 09:35 PM
The bigger picture is that the Dems would have been just as bad on non-RKBA issues, and much worse on RKBA issues.


You must have missed why I don't think that would have happened, and I would refer you to my previous post.

GoRon
October 22, 2006, 09:38 PM
You must have missed why I don't think that would have happened, and I would refer you to my previous post.

And you must have missed the fact that it was the Republicans in the House that stopped a leftist immigration bill (that the President would have signed) dead in its tracks.

Lone_Gunman
October 22, 2006, 09:47 PM
GoRon, I am certainly not trying to get true conservative Republicans, like those that stopped the immigration bill, out of power. But those who have blindly supported the mis-guided neo-conservative policies of Bush need to go.

I have little patience for any Republican conservative who voted for Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, or No Child Left behind. Those are all things that liberals should be supporting, not a party that is supposed to be conservative.

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 10:05 PM
How the hell did Hamdan dispute it in Federal court? He wasn't even a citizen and he was captured on the battlefield. Yet he managed to gain access to our court system even as he was imprisoned in Guantanamo.

You might try reading the act again... it bars all US courts from hearing Habeas Corpus cases involving detainees. I think... given my limited comprehension... that that means they cannot dispute in fed court.

In fact, you could have discovered most of these points (as well as likely arguments I would be making) just by searching THR.

curiously I can find arguments on this site that also claim that liberals would make good targets. Obviously you have more faith in the "facts" on this board than I do.

Silver Bullet
October 22, 2006, 10:26 PM
You must have missed why I don't think that would have happened, and I would refer you to my previous post.
I understand your previous post. It is conjecture.

I maintain that RKBA voting records trumps all, at least from a RKBA perspective.

River Wraith
October 22, 2006, 10:30 PM
curiously I can find arguments on this site that also claim that liberals would make good targets. Obviously you have more faith in the "facts" on this board than I do.
Do you even own any guns? Just curious, but you remind me of a troll that used to post here. His arguments sounded a lot like yours. He didn't own any guns.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 22, 2006, 10:35 PM
You might try reading the act again... it bars all US courts from hearing Habeas Corpus cases involving detainees. I think... given my limited comprehension... that that means they cannot dispute in fed court.

This is the same argument that the government made in Hamdan's case - the Federal government doesn't get to hear his habeas corpus appeal. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals even agreed with the Feds. Despite that, Hamdan got his day in court at the district court level, circuit court of appeals and finally the Supreme Court. Once again, the bill only bars alien unlawful enemy combatants from contesting habeas corpus. If you are a lawful enemy combatant or an American citizen, the bill does not apply to you even if you are a detainee.

Even if the President and Congress passed legislation tomorrow that said "No habeas corpus for poorly informed internet pundits", you would still get the chance to challenge the constitutionality of that bill at both the district court level and cca level. Even if you were denied in both those forums, you could petition the Supreme Court to have your case heard. For that matter, Hamdan (still a detainee) has already filed a lawsuit challenging this bill (http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/oc20terror.html).

curiously I can find arguments on this site that also claim that liberals would make good targets. Obviously you have more faith in the "facts" on this board than I do.

Well, if you HAD looked you would have found not just the commentary; but links to the ABA article I posted above as well as links from law professors at UCLA and Univ. of Tennessee discussing this issue. Even if you don't care for the opinions here, I can't help but think your argument would have been better after reading those links (assuming you want to actually know more about the issue).

Although I'm curious why you would waste your time reading a board where you didn't believe the "facts" that were being offered up there? Not that I am saying that you should accept everything on the Internet unquestioningly; but if you don't have any faith that most of the information here is credible then why bother?

ETA: I accidentally edited your post instead of replying as I intended. I did my best to put it back like I found it previously.

liberalgunnut
October 22, 2006, 11:11 PM
Bartholowmew...

Review by convening authority. S. 3930 would allow the accused to submit matters for consideration to the convening authority with respect to the military commissions’ findings and sentencing. The bill would provide the convening authority with the sole discretion to modify the findings and sentence of a military commission to approve, disapprove, commute, or suspend the sentence in whole or part. However, it would prohibit the convening authority from increasing a sentence beyond what is recommended by the military commission. S. 3930 also would authorize the convening authority to order a revision or a rehearing.

Court of Military Commission Review. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a Court of Military Commission Review to be composed of at least three appellate military judges. The Court would have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of a final judgment of a military commission based on the standards and procedures specified in this chapter and, when applicable, the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Appellate review. The legislation would require an automatic referral for appellate review by the Court of Military Commission Review.

Appeal by the United States. S. 3930 would authorize the United States to take an appeal to the Court of Military Commission Review.


I'm still missing the part about Federal Courts... It seems to me that when they say that the military commission has exclusive jurisdiction it <might> exclude the federal courts. A 2 out of 3 vote could get you the death penalty. I don't see any oversight on this other than the SecDef's appointed tribunal. Without oversight your entire argument is crap.

Putting all that aside, I'm assuming that from your argument that you fully support this bill. I'm also assuming that you trust republicans to execute it as you might expect it to executed. Hopefully that will not be with the same "expertise" that executed the CIA "secret" prisons, the unwarranted wiretapping, the war in Iraq and it's the "Plan" for Victory, and the "quaint" rules of the Geneva Conventions.

Being the rocket scientist that I am, I am convinced that you might find me an annoyance, but your thoughts remind me of the story of the frog that just got put into a pot of cold water on the stove... you know the rest. Blind faith in your leaders is considered a great attribute in some cultures. No mine, but I hear Brittany Spears is a big fan of it...

btw: feel free to edit my posts anytime, no worries. :)

but if you don't have any faith that most of the information here is credible then why bother?

I got some great advise on a jamming issue with my Ruger MK2 the other day (280 Plus had some very good info)... this is a great place for gun stuff. I just like to point out that the right doesn't own the flag, guns, or patriotism (although you can have Bush and the NeoCons)... I'd point out that if you don't want to hear decent than maybe you guys ought to say so up front. I wouldn't want to get in the way of your group hug.


working on the east coast tonight... have a nice evening.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 22, 2006, 11:32 PM
I'm still missing the part about Federal Courts... It seems to me that when they say that the military commission has exclusive jurisdiction it <might> exclude the federal courts.

The bill does say that the military commission has exclusive jurisdiction over ALIEN ENEMY UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. Remember how we started this inane conversation? We were discussing whether or not Manedwolf's contention that American citizens had lost their protections under the Bill of Rights was ridiculous hyperbole. So why is it that every time you answer me, you continue to act like you never caught the part about this applying to aliens?

Second, the legislation doesn't provide for appeal to a federal court; but guess what? Hamdan is filing suit anyway even though this legislation specifically forbids his appeal - and he will probably go to the Supreme Court again even though this legislation specifically forbids his appeal. See the ABA link I provided earlier.

A 2 out of 3 vote could get you the death penalty. I don't see any oversight on this other than the SecDef's appointed tribunal. Without oversight your entire argument is crap.

Even under this legislation, there are multiple levels of review for alien unlawful enemy combatants. First, there is the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. This court determines whether or not the combatant is in fact an unlawful enemy combatant. Once the status has been determined, the combatant may be tried under the Military Commissions Act for any acts against the laws of war as established by the Geneva Conventions. Should the alien be convicted and sentenced, he may appeal his conviction to the three judge panel in the section of legislation that you quoted.

Note that in WWII, common practice among Allied forces for alien unlawful enemy combatants would have been to execute them on the spot. Yet here, we are giving them three separate levels of military trial.

Putting all that aside, I'm assuming that from your argument that you fully support this bill.

No I don't. In fact, if you had bothered to do even the tiniest bit of reading or searching, you would already know this. I find several serious problems with this bill; but habeas corpus isn't one of them.

Blind faith in your leaders is considered a great attribute in some cultures. No mine, but I hear Brittany Spears is a big fan of it...

:rolleyes: I'm probably not the right guy to accuse of "blind faith in your leaders"; but then again you would have to actually read a bit around here to know that and clearly, reading before commenting isn't your forte.

I'd point out that if you don't want to hear decent than maybe you guys ought to say so up front.

Decent? Has your "decent" been stifled so far in the past week?

ksnecktieman
October 23, 2006, 01:18 AM
Maybe I should be digging for my dictionary, instead of posting,,, but,,,, is "liberal gun nut" not a conundrum? (or a troll?)

I seem to feel some conflict here.

liberalgunnut
October 23, 2006, 11:18 AM
The bill does say that the military commission has exclusive jurisdiction over ALIEN ENEMY UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. Remember how we started this inane conversation? We were discussing whether or not Manedwolf's contention that American citizens had lost their protections under the Bill of Rights was ridiculous hyperbole. So why is it that every time you answer me, you continue to act like you never caught the part about this applying to aliens?

ummm... that might be because from your high horse it's hard to see what the bill says:

948a(4): "UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant." A lawful enemy combatant is defined as follows in Sect. 948a(3) "LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."

While other sections describe these as 'alien'.... the definition does not make that distinction. This simply describes a 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant' as someone who is engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a 'Lawful Enemy Combatant'.

Apparently I'm not the only one confused... the Counsel on Foreign Relations seems a bit confused as well

Enemy Combatant
An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”
“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.


of course the problem with naming one an enemy combatant prior to determining their guilt is a big problem for those named enemy combatants... but no so much for you.

btw: did you miss the second sentence of the Hamdi case?

Scalia:

Petitioner, a presumed American citizen, has been imprisoned without charge or hearing in the Norfolk and Charleston Naval Brigs for more than two years, on the allegation that he is an enemy combatant who bore arms against his country for the Taliban.

Scalia (in speaking of rights):

They apply only to citizens, accused of being enemy combatants, who are detained within the territorial jurisdiction of a federal court.

The MCA excludes Federal Court.

you...

Who? The only guy I can think of is Padilla who was held for several years before the courts finally said "Yes, you have to give him a trial." I agree it is pretty bad the court had to make that point; but are any other American citizens currently being detained without trial?

you...

I didn't miss it - it has no relevance to what we were discussing earlier because it applies only to the Geneva Conventions. United States citizens do not rely on the Geneva Conventions for their rights.

you...

How the hell did Hamdan dispute it in Federal court? He wasn't even a citizen and he was captured on the battlefield. Yet he managed to gain access to our court system even as he was imprisoned in Guantanamo.

you...

My argument is mediocre.

I'm beginning to agree with you.

Jefferson:

“Why suspend the Hab. corp. in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime. Of course the judge will remand them. If the publick safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies; let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages.”

Silver Bullet
October 23, 2006, 11:43 AM
I'd point out that if you don't want to hear decent than maybe you guys ought to say so up front.
:confused: You gave your opinion, we gave ours. What's the problem ?

Blind faith in your leaders is considered a great attribute in some cultures.
Blind faith in the LiberalMedia is considered cool in some circles, but not mine.

liberalgunnut
October 23, 2006, 12:09 PM
You gave your opinion, we gave ours. What's the problem ?

Blind faith in the LiberalMedia is considered cool in some circles, but not mine.

I don't have a problem with any of that... we are in agreement. Although I would simply add blind faith in any media is considered cool in some circles, but not mine.

btw: While you're having your group hug...you might ask bartholomew what my problem is, he seems to have all the answers. :rolleyes:

BigFatKen
October 23, 2006, 12:12 PM
Derek Zeanah
Moderator - Sys Admin

...I'll not vote before I vote republican.

With all due respect to your position here, I did that, sort of, in 1992. After President George H. W. Bush turned in his NRA card, I would not vote for him. I voted for Perot so I could vote for someone.

This gave us a POTUS I refer to as "The Impeached One". And yes, like Johnson before him, he will be impeached forever. He also cannot practice Law in his home State nor before the SCOUS but those are only for his lifetime.

The Country does not need another AWB and to socialize medicine would be a disaster. When the Liberals fail, they say "at least I tried" and then think the reason their anti-gun or (insert Liberal Big Nanny Law here) laws did not work is because the law was not tough enough.

So, what does that leave us? I have seen postings that the 1992 elections gave us the try at socialized medicine which begat the 1994 Contract for America which begat the Republican "takeover" of congress; a "hissy fit" according to one of the TVs leading news anchors on big time network TV. For the younger members here, there once was a time when the citizens believed what was on the big three news shows.

Rambled enough, I'll vote for Governor Riley(R), Regular, who is an A+ by NRA. The opposition is Lucy something (D), Dummy, who's signs read "I love Lucy" so I don't know her last name.

My Congress critters are no worse than the rest of them. They try to bring us pork but then our County is so poor, we share a Judge with three Counties. Ever since I Googled BigFatKen and came up with 909 hits, I think my status of Anonomus is gone.

I am, Respectfully,

Ssg Kenneth Henkel, US Army (Retired)

Derek Zeanah
October 23, 2006, 12:28 PM
Do what you've gotta do. I won't vote for, and implicitly give my consent to, anyone that campaigns on the promise to reduce my rights further.

Bush and the Republicans have had control of the white house and congress for 6 years, and I now feel like I know what they stand for. Harriet Myers on the supreme court was a good one, as was the patriot act, the argument that we need more torture when interrogating folks, the idea that it's ok to imprison a citizen for years without charges (good 'ol Padilla), the idea that leaks that show the administration is violating the law are somehow bad for america, increased warrantless wiretaps, the lovely experience that is post-9/11 flying, a big increase in non-military spending (what's the federal debt now - $500,000 per family?), the medicare reform fiasco, widespread snarfing of phone data (or worse) by the feds, collusion between the NSA and other federal outfits for domestic spying, limitations on speech during election cycles (that Bush said he thought was unconstitutional right before he signed it -- gotta love how binding his oath was), and so on.

I'm not OK with that. My only real say in the matter this election is whether I vote Republican or not. If I do, that's an implicit stamp of approval for all that has been done in the last 6 years.

And I don't approve.

And before we get on the whole "but them liberals will take our GUNS" argument, lemme just say that Lautenberg (a clearly unconstitutional ex-post-facto law) wasn't repealed, the machine gun registry lockout hasn't been opened back up, etc. The AWB expired, because congress refused to re-authorize it (and Bush made it clear he'd sign it if he received it), but as far as I can tell that's the only good thing for gun owners to come out of the Republicans being in charge, and that was more inaction than anything else.

At best, Republicans are indifferent to guns, though they might have more love for gunmakers. They're certainly not a "pro-gun party." Hell, all the pro-gun things that have happened in the last decade have been local or state-wide efforts -- totally bypassing the feds. If the Republicans were even slightly pro-gun, we'd have pilots able to carry on commercial flights. That might actually help prevent future hijackings...

You're welcome to disagree, and your vote is your own. But I'm not a one-issue voter any more. I'm terribly concerned about the long-term viability of my country, and guns are just a piece of that.

progunner1957
October 23, 2006, 12:31 PM
With all due respect to your position here, I did that, sort of, in 1992. After President George H. W. Bush turned in his NRA card, I would not vote for him. I voted for Perot so I could vote for someone.So did I. Lesson learned. I won't make the same mistake twice.

As I have said before, it is incumbent upon gun owners to vote for the candidate who has the most realistic chance at defeating the leftist/Democrat/socialist candidate in the election for President. To do anything else is to invte disaster.


This gave us a POTUS I refer to as "The Impeached One". And yes, like Johnson before him, he will be impeached forever. He also cannot practice Law in his home State nor before the SCOUS but those are only for his lifetime. America can ill afford another such individual fouling the White House and forcing the socialist agenda on this nation.

The Country does not need another AWB and to socialize medicine would be a disaster. When the Liberals fail, they say they "at least I tried" and then think the reason their anti-gun or (insert Liberal Big Nanny Law here) laws did not work is because the law was not tough enough.
+ 10,000 on that! The "new and improved" AWB that the leftist/Democrat/socialist tribe wants to impose on us will include such gems as:

-Ban of ALL semiautomatic guns, including rifles, handguns and shotguns.
-No grandfather clause for currently owned guns, which means confiscation.
-Ban of all ammo in "military calibers" to include 9mm, .45ACP, .223, .308.
-Require arsenal license for possession of 5 or more guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.
-Ban or strict control and licensing of all reloading equipment.
-Eventual ban on possession of all handguns, which means confiscation.

These are just a few of their goals. Does anyone here want to live under such laws? I sure don't! If you don't, vote accordingly.

Lone_Gunman
October 23, 2006, 02:14 PM
These are just a few of their goals. Does anyone here want to live under such laws? I sure don't! If you don't, vote accordingly.


So you don't mind having the First Amendment violated by Campaign Finance Reform? Or the Fourth Amendment violated by the Patriot Act?

And you want to expand the size of the federal bureaucracy? And expand the welfare state as done with Medicare Reform?

I also assume that Republican supporters also want the Mexican border left unattended, and give amnesty to the illegals already here, like Bush?

Republicans also have allowed North Korea to go nuclear on their watch. Do you support that also?

Gun rights are very important, but I don't see why we should continue to enthusiastically support a party that is at best neutral on the 2nd Amendment, but willing to violate all the rest. I won't go out and vote for a liberal Democrat; but I would vote for a moderate to conservative Democrat, or maybe just sit the election out entirely.

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 02:26 PM
So you don't mind having the First Amendment violated by Campaign Finance Reform?

McCain/Feingold?:rolleyes: Yeah, THAT was a GOP initiative.

4th Amendment has been violated HOW?

Mexican border? Who is it, exactly, that pushes for illegals to get drivers' licenses in border states like mine? I assure you it's not the GOP.

North Korea's going nuclear was WHOSE fault? WHO had the opportunity to do something (without getting Seoul blown up)? Yeah, I'd have liked to see Bush do more, but voting Democrat will help HOW?

Seriously.

I don't like the smell, sitting in this outhouse, so I guess I'll go swim in the septic tank?

liberalgunnut
October 23, 2006, 03:03 PM
North Korea's going nuclear was WHOSE fault? WHO had the opportunity to do something (without getting Seoul blown up)? Yeah, I'd have liked to see Bush do more, but voting Democrat will help HOW?

North Korea went nuclear because they were being ignored... by both parties, for a very long time. It wasn't until Bush laid down the law including them in the "axis of evil" that we really stuck it to them... thank god that Bush held firm on all his threats or they might be nuclear... oh wait.:uhoh:

The realities are that we alone can't do anything about NK or Iran because we don't have the military to do it. Well actually, we do... they just happen to all be in Iraq.

We could do something with some global support, but given our current policies we are somewhat of a global redheaded stepchild.

They both stink. maybe the solution is indoor plumbing.

Lone_Gunman
October 23, 2006, 04:32 PM
ArmedBear,

I don't think I need to explain anything. After all it was the Republicans that have been in power for the last 6 years, and have no one but themselves to blame for their accomplishments.

If the Republicans would have enforced the law, and kept illegal aliens out, then the Democrats couldn't give them driver's licenses.

I have no idea what should have been done to keep nukes out of the hands of the North Koreans, but I don't have to know because I am not in Congress. It is the job of our leaders to come up with plans like that. The Republicans haven't.

Like I said, I might not vote Democrat, but can't imagine voting for an incumbent that contributed to this mess.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 23, 2006, 05:03 PM
ummm... that might be because from your high horse it's hard to see what the bill says

Here is what the bills says:
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Yet, you don't want to discuss the part about who is actually subject to military commissions under this chapter. You only want to discuss a single section of the chapter regarding definitions. Why is that?

While other sections describe these as 'alien'.... the definition does not make that distinction. This simply describes a 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant' as someone who is engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a 'Lawful Enemy Combatant'.

Yes - and those people are not subject to military commissions -as the above section explains and as the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html) decision that I have quoted to you several times now both explain.

Apparently I'm not the only one confused... the Counsel on Foreign Relations seems a bit confused as well

What makes you think the Council on Foreign Relations is confused? I didn't see a question in there. They are simply restating the law, which not surprisingly, says that if you take up weapons against the United States during war, you are an enemy combatant whether you are an American citizen or not. They then go on to explain the difference between an unlawful enemy combatant and an enemy combatant according to Geneva III. Under Article 5 of Geneva IV, an unlawful combatant receives no protections under the Geneva conventions.

Finally they explain that because al-Quaida clearly is not a lawful combatant under Geneva III Article 4, they must be unlawful enemy combatants.

of course the problem with naming one an enemy combatant prior to determining their guilt is a big problem for those named enemy combatants... but no so much for you.

I think you are confusing the President declaring the al-Quaida organization to be unlawful enemy combatants under Geneva III Article 4 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument) with specific individuals being named enemy combatants. Surely you don't mean to suggest that the President is incorrect in that declaration concerning al-Quaida?

No individuals have been declared "unlawful enemy combatants" without a combatant status review tribunal - which is a military court designated to hear just that issue.

btw: did you miss the second sentence of the Hamdi case?

You are quoting from the dissent in Hamdi (i.e. the losing side). You do understand what dissent means right (or "decent" if you prefer)? Scalia lost that vote. I am trying really hard to be nice here; but I am left with two conclusions:

1) You don't understand what a dissent opinion from the Supreme Court means - which means trying to explain more complicated legal issues to you is going to be more work than I have time for.

2) You do understand what a dissent opinion from the Supreme Court means and selectively quoted it to support your case, even though you knew it did no such thing.

I am sure you can understand why I would be reluctant to waste my time with someone who fits into either of those two categories.


Scalia (in speaking of rights):
Quote:
They apply only to citizens, accused of being enemy combatants, who are detained within the territorial jurisdiction of a federal court.

The MCA excludes Federal Court.

Just to clarify this for you... Scalia was arguing that any citizen detained within the territorial jurisdiction (i.e. within the United States proper) has habeas corpus rights. This would be in contrast to the statutory jurisdiction provided by the MCA. His argument was that because Hamdi was captured on the battlefield in another country, he lost his rights as an American citizen.

That argument lost. The Court said that regardless of where you are, or the fact that you are an unlawful enemy combatant, you still have habeas corpus rights as an American citizen; but even Scalia's losing dissent would still offer the vast majority of American citizens habeas corpus rights under the MCA.

Quote:
are any other American citizens currently being detained without trial?

Since your actual argument consists only of the words "you", I am going to do my best to just guess at the point you are trying to make. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't get it perfect. Please note the emphasis above and answer the question. I've been very nice about you repeatedly ignoring my questions while answering yours. Now, please list for me all American citizens who are being detained without access to our court system (p.s. Hamdi was released).

As to your other two points, even with my mind-reading mod powers, I wasn't able to guess what argument you thought you were making.

Once again, here is a nice summary to take away from this: There are a lot of problems with this bill; however, American citizens still have full rights to habeas corpus under this bill.

Finally, since we seem to be specifically addressing the MCA, we should probably stop dragging this thread OT and continue the conversation here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=228834&page=3

liberalgunnut
October 23, 2006, 06:49 PM
see you at the other thread.:)

Kowboy
October 23, 2006, 08:00 PM
Manedwolf:

My thoughts exactly.

Thanks,

Kowboy

lionking
October 23, 2006, 09:09 PM
I remember all to well the propaganda that the Klintons,Dems,Brady,HCI and Hollywood used to promote antigun legislation and Im sure they would do it again if they thought the wind was blowing right.

During the AWB proposal,I would see movies with propaganda,one movie I remember started with kids playing with a ar15,which had nothing to do with the storyline otherwise.

I remember hearing on radio promotions how crooks were using "assault rifles" to carjack...really good concealment weapons right?How there was a crime wave with them and who "needs" them anyway.Come to find that actually the percentage used in crime was low.

So hunters,handgun owners,and others who were not "into" those rifles said "yeah!,who needs them?" and voted for it.

Come to find the ban affected all other groups of gun owners also.All for one and one for all I say...cause even in the end the bolt action hunting rifle will be considered a menace to society also by them.Remember the 90's movie an American president?Banning ALL handguns was part of the propaganda of the movie.

Im not completely happy with the Repubs also,Libertarians could get my vote IF...but the Dems (the elite ones)prove themselves time and time to be hostile to gun ownership.Ill probably swallow my pride and go Repub once again just because of that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Our right to arms: What's at stake this November" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!