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

[liberalgunnut]

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 is suggesting we include the taliban in the afghan government.


things are going great!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

 

[BigFatKen]

"I'll not vote before I vote republican." Ths is what gave us the POTUS wih the AWB.

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]

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]

The goals of the antigun bigots

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]

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]

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

McCain/Feingold? 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]

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.

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]

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]

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 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 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]

see you at the other thread.

 

[Kowboy]

Manedwolf:

My thoughts exactly.

Thanks,

Kowboy

 

[lionking]

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.