It happened quietly, and without a lot of fanfare. An IRC channel I was lurking in was going nuts -- 169+ people in it, and gaining rapidly. Excitement in the air. Felt like New Years Eve, if I had spent New Years Eve in front of a computer.
After 10 years, we've got a right back. Funny how I still call it a right -- a right being something that can't be taken away -- at least in my ideal view of the world. In case you haven't kept up, or haven't heard myself or one of my associates ranting about the ban, I'd just like to show quickly what was different under the ban:
Of course, at this point, now that the ban is gone -- I'll just say nothing to do with automatic weapons, etc. etc. Most have heard it before, and now that it's no longer a law, there really isn't much point in harping on it. If you want more info on it, AWBSunset is the place to go.
But really, that's not what I came here to talk about. What I'm more concerned with, is how this law passed constitutional muster? I'm no scholar, but I'd like to know where in The Constitution it says that congress has the power to regulate the style aspects of guns?
Doesn't really seem like something I want congress doing.
So, one more thing before I leave this discussion. Never thought I'd say it, but here goes:
Thanks, Dubya, for keeping your mouth shut and never asking for a renewal.
Now that I've done that, I have to complain about a few other things he's done (and don't worry, I'll get some equal time in there with Kerry gripes.)
This article about the Loser Democrats by Paul Craig Roberts really does a good job of summing up how stupid the dems have been going after a loser issue like gun "control". You'd think they'd have learned something from 1996. Dubya is not exactly great on guns, but now that the assault weapons ban has quietly faded into the night, he certainly appears a bit better.
But in the article Bush v. the 2nd Amendment by Chris Powell, we see some of the smaller things that don't make such big press. Things that don't inflame tensions nearly as much as they should.
"The worst of the Bush record, though, is in the courts. Bush appointee Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the D.C. District Court, tells us that the Second Amendment is not an individual right in Seegars v. Ashcroft."
Hmmm... Let's look at one of the quotes from that judges opinion as he dismissed the lawsuit to strike down the DC gun ban:
"the Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.
Really, rather than finding reasons to dislike Bush, I suppose that I should try to figure out how these lunatics can think that the 2nd amendment is talking about a collective right, but all the others are about individuals, and besides all that, even without looking at the 2nd amendment, where in the constitution does it say that congress shall have the power to regulate individual arms?
Doesn't.
As to Kerry, well, I don't think I really have to say anything other than this: "I'm a hunter, I'm a gun owner [and] I believe in the Second Amendment.� -- Senator John Kerry. Good to hear, John, good to hear. Yea, I believe you.
Now that the AWB is gone, this race (in regards to gun rights) has gone from "bad v. worse" to "slightly less bad v. worse". I guess that's something.
I don't know, Bush said he would sign the bill if they passed it to him, just like Clinton did. Only difference is this time it's a Republican Congress.
This is and will remain a partisan issue.
But, let's review:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Those second and third words put me in a quandry.
True, and we can probably thank Karl Rove for that as well. Even though Bush said he would sign it, he never lifted a finger. I'll give him a bit of credit for that (and take some away for saying he would sign it.)
I still don't believe that Bush is a friend of firearms owners -- witness the appointments, and that he hasn't rescinded Bush 41's executive order. He's merely a little bit better.
See, to me, that certainly doesn't mean "Congress shall have the power to regulate the appearance of weapons that the citizens may own" (or really, any other aspect about them -- but I'll keep it clean here.
The main body of the Constitution is all about limiting Congress -- the Bill of Rights is all about saying explicitly a few things that they can't do.
Even without the 2nd amendment, there is no justification for Congress to regulate the appearance of arms. Nor the function, nor anything else.
Damn, the interstate commerce clause is what needs to be smacked down, really.
To me, aside from the issues of the ban and such, there's no justification for Congress to pass a law that abridges a Natural Right. In the same way, they shouldn't have passed something like McCain/Feingold.