Jon Meacham, a gun owner, on restoring the assault weapons ban

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, I have read the Heller decision, have you actually read it, or are you just paraphrasing whatever Marc Levin said about it? So nice of you to cut and paste your response there. The heller decision should be an amendment, it changes the language and spirit of the 2nd amendment by essentially crossing out the context of the original intent.

Essentially becomes

Ironic that a bunch of libertarians and conservatives applauding judicial activism.

Until the Supreme Court overturns it, it is the law of the land. You do not have to like it, agree with it or even think it is ironic. It IS the law. Any such debate begns and ends with that FACT

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

For everyone's edification, for those that forgot or never knew...

The so-called "Assualt Weapons ban of 1994" banned nothing. It was passed on July 14, 1994 after then President Clinton urged Congress to pass the law before their summer recess because "criminals do not take vacation" On passing it, Clinton wnet on vacation and did not sign the law until September 14, 1994. It was to expire in 10 years unless renewed and placed a moratorium on the manufacture of rifles with certain cosmetic features that had nothing to do with the lethality of the rifles. While it banned the future manufacture of the "Colt AR-15" by name, it had no effect on the Colt Sporter which was the same rifle with a different name. They took off the bayonet lug and flash hider and happily produced more than ever. To an untrained eye, there is no difference in appearance between the two rifles and there is NO difference in funstion.

Any rifle made before September 14 was still legal to sell. So were high capacity magazines. magazines are made of stamped sheet metal and molded plastic. They are made by machines by the millions, billions. In the two month period that Clinton vacationed, the manufacturers stopped ALL other production and focused night and day on the manufacture of magazines and rifle receivers. When the law went into affect, there was more than a 10 year supply of magazines available. During the 10 year period high capacity magazines offered for new sale were never in short supply. Rifles eventually morphed into legal versions of the same rifles made before the ban with changes to cosmetic features.

Because of these circumstances it was impossible for the so called assault weapons ban to ever have any effect on crime. NO rifles or magazines were "taken off the streets" and in fact were avaialble all along. In 2004 the ban was allowed to die because it was useless.

The only effect it had was to cost the Democrats a 40+ year run as majority party in congress. It may have been a Republican stealth tactic.

Just thought everyone could keep that in mind when people talk about implementing something that is not only unconstitutional but useless.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Vermont is the safest place in the Western hemisphere. Anyone can carry a concealed weapon. No license needed.

The AWB will not be put back in place no matter how many phony gun owners you trot out. It is unconstitutional. It expired in 2004. The Supremes ruled on Heller and McDonald in 2008 and 2010. game over.

Peddle your civil rights restrictions elsewhere.

I think you must be reading this thread from a parallel universe, since you seem to be reading things that I have not mentioned at all.

I don't believe guns are a magic solution for social ills. Whether Vermont is or is not "the safest place in the western hemisphere" is neither here nor there.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I think you must be reading this thread from a parallel universe, since you seem to be reading things that I have not mentioned at all.

I don't believe guns are a magic solution for social ills. Whether Vermont is or is not "the safest place in the western hemisphere" is neither here nor there.

Well clearly you haven't been keeping up with Gary. Aparently, he is close friends with Senator Patrick Leahy, and the senator keeps a picture of his wife in his office. Gary also has a magical unicorn that he rides to and from the senators office, but he is far too modest to ever post pictures of that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'll only believe it if the unicorn has saddle mounted machine guns Edited January 21, 2011 by Ron Burgundy

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well clearly you haven't been keeping up with Gary. Aparently, he is close friends with Senator Patrick Leahy, and the senator keeps a picture of his wife in his office. Gary also has a magical unicorn that he rides to and from the senators office, but he is far too modest to ever post pictures of that.

Alla is an amatuer photographer, so is Leahy. Some of Alla's photos (NOT photos of Alla...learn to read English) are on display in his office as Alla made a gift of them to him. The photos are of Cathedrals in Moscow, which Alla photographed, printed, framed and are on display. Sheeeesh.

It is difficult dealing with people that have trouble with comprehension. It is a cross to bear.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Alla is an amatuer photographer, so is Leahy. Some of Alla's photos (NOT photos of Alla...learn to read English) are on display in his office as Alla made a gift of them to him.

It is difficult dealing with people that have trouble with comprehension. It is a cross to bear.

Actually Gary, "Alla's Photos" is an ambiguous statement. It could refer to photos of her or photos she has taken. Comprehension has nothing to do with it, you should be clearer in your explanations. Especially since, as we well know, having followed Garys magical mystery tour of Me, Myself and I, that Alla is a published model. Why wouldn't the pictures be of her? Is it a stretch?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Actually Gary, "Alla's Photos" is an ambiguous statement. It could refer to photos of her or photos she has taken. Comprehension has nothing to do with it, you should be clearer in your explanations. Especially since, as we well know, having followed Garys magical mystery tour of Me, Myself and I, that Alla is a published model. Why wouldn't the pictures be of her? Is it a stretch?

It is stupid. Big surprise. Assume the worst.

It was clearly an attempt to deflect the attention from the fact we have health insurance for all. Problem? Or shall we still discuss Alla's photography? why are all the "supporters" of healthcare not thrilled and working to do the same in their state?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is stupid. Big surprise. Assume the worst.

It was clearly an attempt to deflect the attention from the fact we have health insurance for all. Problem? Or shall we still discuss Alla's photography? why are all the "supporters" of healthcare not thrilled and working to do the same in their state?

It's a reasonable question. You can't challenge someone's reading comprehension because your own statement was unclear.

[james&olya 1,121]

It is stupid. Big surprise. Assume the worst.

It was clearly an attempt to deflect the attention from the fact we have health insurance for all. Problem? Or shall we still discuss Alla's photography? why are all the "supporters" of healthcare not thrilled and working to do the same in their state?

Gary, I must tell you that I will be very happy if Vermont can achieve single-payer universal health insurance! I will be only too happy to try and see it adopted here as well. Yes, I am thrilled about the prospect that Vermont may lead the way here.

And I was not certain but I guessed that 'Alla's photos' referred to pictures taken BY her rather than OF her. Didn't seem logical that photos of her would hang in the senator's office! But I do understand someone making that mistake. (I would love to see those photos if they are available.)

Edited January 21, 2011 by james&olya

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, I must tell you that I will be very happy if Vermont can achieve single-payer universal health insurance! I will be only too happy to try and see it adopted here as well. Yes, I am thrilled about the prospect that Vermont may lead the way here.

And I was not certain but I guessed that 'Alla's photos' referred to pictures taken BY her rather than OF her. Didn't seem logical that photos of her would hang in the senator's office! But I do understand someone making that mistake. (I would love to see those photos if they are available.)

The situation is clear. There are some people that have to attack other people whether or not they agree with them on a particular issue because they disagree with them on another issue. For them it is personal, not a political issue. If someone doesn't agree with them on something, then they HATE them on everything. They do not care about health care. If they did they would applaud what Vermont is doing and wish for their state to do the same. This isn't even about healthcare and the statements I made about Alla's photos were in a another thread, but were imported here when the people that disagree with me on gun control ran out of arguments. It is pathetic, actually. It is also why I am very confident the AWB ill never be implemented again.

As it is, Alla and I were both in his office to discuss amendments to the immigration process in the bill which was proposed last year, The Leahy-Martinez Immigration Act. I do not agree with most of the bill but it does contain simplifications for the AOS process and particularly for the medical requirements. That was our intent, to eliminate the need for Civil Surgeons to perform medicals and sign off on I-693s. The Senator agrees that if your family doctor can prescribe you narcotics, he ought to be able to sign off on a measles shot. The CS role has become that of a parasite in the immigration process. When there, Alla noticed all his photos (as in "photos he had taken" not photos of him) and they discussed their mutual interest in photography. On our next visit she brought him two framed photos of Russian Cathedrals in Moscow and they are now on display in his Burlington office. She has them on a flashdrive and I can post them at my "profile photos"

The point of my mentioning it IN ANOTHER THREAD was that while Senator Leahy and I disagree on gun control, I vote for him because of the value he represents for our state and because I know of his dedication to his constituents. I do not HATE the Senator because we disagree on SOME things. Seems a difficult concept for many people to grasp. And then they call themselves "pro choice"

Edited January 21, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah, nobody cares about healthcare. Sure, that's right.

If the sarcasm there isn't clear, i hope it is now.

[slim 1,530]

Maybe you constitutional scholars can tell me which part of the constitution justifies a national health care system?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Maybe you constitutional scholars can tell me which part of the constitution justifies a national health care system?

If we have to take away your guns to get you to go for a check up then that is exactly what we'll do!

[james&olya 1,121]

Maybe you constitutional scholars can tell me which part of the constitution justifies a national health care system?

What everyone keeps forgetting is that we have had single payer national health insurance with mandatory taxation on everyone to pay for it. It is called medicare. I personally don't like it that private insurance companies are the only option for those under 65 not already under a government program. I would like to have the option of signing on to medicare at any age!