1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bucking the NRA - St Louis Post Dispatch Editorial

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Jeff White, May 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Alma Illinois
    I guess the 3 judges in the 9th settled the issue for everyone. Even the decision of the rest of the 9th circuit or SCOTUS if it rules on the case doesn't matter. :barf:

    EDITORIAL: Bucking the NRA
    updated: 05/16/2003 09:35 AM


    PRESIDENT George W. Bush surprised many when he decided to buck the National Rifle Association and throw his support behind a renewal of the ban on assault weapons. The NRA has made this issue one of its key legislative priorities.

    Mr. Bush isn't giving up much by siding with the anti-gun lobby on this issue. The Washington Post reports that GOP House leaders are thinking of not renewing the ban by dropping the issue and not bringing it to a vote. If Mr. Bush is sincere about wanting a ban, he should insist that these GOP leaders take up the issue.

    There are other real tests of Mr. Bush's commitment to rational gun-control laws. One is what he allows his attorney general, John Ashcroft, to do about federal background checks. Mr. Ashcroft wants to have federal background checks on gun sales destroyed after 24 hours. This would thwart efforts to track down suspected criminals, such as those behind the deadly attacks in the D.C. sniper case. Moreover, Mr. Ashcroft has offered a curiously literal interpretation of the Second Amendment's guarantee of gun ownership rights. Last December, a three-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the amendment protects only the right of states to organize and maintain militias. Mr. Ashcroft thinks it protects an individual's gun rights.

    The other issue is whether Mr. Bush will buck Congress' move to shield gun makers and dealers from lawsuits, such as those filed by relatives of two victims in the D.C. sniper case. Mr. Bush should listen to gun opponents who want gun makers and dealers to be held accountable for the harm done by their products. Some gun makers knowingly ship weapons to unscrupulous dealers who do business with straw buyers and others who funnel weapons to criminals. St. Louis is one of the cities that have filed lawsuits against makers and dealers. The outcome of these suits could depend on whether Mr. Bush is willing to veto potential legislation that enacts a broad shield for the makers and dealers.

    The president should listen to law enforcement officials who are trying to rid neighborhoods of guns used in street crimes. As St. Louis Police Chief Joe Mokwa has pointed out, most guns confiscated from gangs aren't stolen, but bought from straw buyers. A shield would make it harder for police to thwart such weapons trafficking.

    While it's commendable that Mr. Bush has decided to support the ban on assault weapons, he could do even more by requiring Mr. Ashcroft to reread the Second Amendment and by holding gun makers and dealers accountable.
  2. UnknownSailor

    UnknownSailor Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    Bremerton, WA
    I suppose the writer of this article is conveniently forgetting that language was written into the Brady Law specifically to disallow keeping the background check information.

    Of course, "more, better government" fanatics never let little things like the law get in their way.

    I issue the dreaded :rolleyes: on this article.
  3. clange

    clange Member

    Dec 27, 2002
    I cant believe people are that retarded..and even worse that people believe them. :banghead:
  4. Tom C.

    Tom C. Member

    Jan 15, 2003
    Southern Maryland
    Interesting, they quote the most over turned circuit court in the nation's decision, but don't bother to mention the Fifth Circuit opinion that affirmed the individual right interpretation.
  5. mjydrafter

    mjydrafter Member

    Apr 29, 2003
    How would registration have helped this investigation? Wasn't it stolen? I'm sure John Lee Malvo went back and filled out a 4473 and without anyone knowing, and stuck it in the shops bound book. Just another empty-headed tirade against the 2nd.
  6. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 26, 2002
    See what playing the moderate gets you? You jump for them and the next thing you know its "Dance for me boy!"
  7. fmjcafe

    fmjcafe Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    St. Louis, MO.
    Here`s an e mail I sent the Post Disgrace concerning the article.

    Why was I not surprised to find the Post Dispatch siding with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals collectivist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. After all, the Posts anti human rights stance concerning the 2nd Amendment is a matter of record. Referring to Attorney General Ashcrofts individual rights stance as a "curiously literal interpretation" bears a bit of examination. Even a cursory search will reveal some other well known Americans that shared Mr. Ashcrofts views. For example, Patrick Henry stated," The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able, may have a gun." and John Adams said," Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." and also that," the Constitution never be construed to prevent the people of the United States from keeping their own arms."

    It would seem that the Attorney General is in very good company.
    Gordon Piszar
    Ballwin, MO.

    I`ll have to keep an eye out to see if they print it.
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Compromising with leftist extremists is suicide on the intallment plan.
  9. general

    general Member

    Mar 23, 2003
    Safely tucked into the shadow of NORAD
    A reply to the Editor.

    First the link....
    The St. Louis Post Dispatch

    Post Dispatch Letters to the Editor
    Dear Sirs,

    Regarding your editorial stance on "assault weapons", I was wondering if you were aware of the actual rate of crime reduction this bill provided? I didn't think so. If there were statistics to back up a drop in the rate of crime caused by these specific guns, you would have printed it. Additionally, the weapons affected by this ban are not fully automatic weapons, as some would like us to believe, but ordinary semi-automatic rifles that are no longer allowed to have certain cosmetic features.

    As for Bush insisting that GOP leaders take up the "issue", that would be wonderful for you and the anti-gun liberals wouldn't it? It would not only further your anti-gun, anti-Bill of Rights, anti-freedom agenda, but also virtually guarantee a loss for the Republicans at the polls in 2004. This is all so much posturing to further the liberal political agenda.
    I also realize your call for "rational gun control laws" completely ignores the real cause of crime. Where is the call for rational criminal control laws? We can't even keep track of paroled felons, but let's make sure we keep track of law-abiding, responsible gun purchasers who have already shown their propensity for unlawfulness by complying with the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books.

    Why is it when you talk about the First, Fourth and other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, it always safeguards an individual’s right, reserved for the people. Yet when the Second Amendment is mentioned, the same argument is deemed patently false for reasons unfathomable to me.

    Since you also seem to be on the trial lawyers employment advocacy group regarding the ability to sue manufacturers for lawful, non-defective products misused by criminals in the commission of their crimes, why stop there. Let's sue Ford for drunk drivers, sue GM for carjacking and sue Taco-Bell for being overweight. Personal responsibility is such an outdated notion.

    In closing, let me say that I abhor your anti-freedom stance, and insinuating that Mr. Ashcroft should reread the Second Amendment is insulting to anyone who has ever read it. Maybe you should read it for the first time, along with the entire Bill of Rights. Additionally, you could read the Federalist papers to gain some insight with regard to what they were trying to accomplish. Then you can tell me where we should start removing and restricting the rights granted to the people by selectively reinterpreting this document.

    :barf: :fire: :banghead: :cuss:
    (BTW- Is "unlawfulness" a word or did it just sound like one? I was on a roll - so I stuck with it - WORD didn't reject it.. so...)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page