Originally Posted by
SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2970740
In skimming over this thread... it's shocking to me how many people here are all for some rights up until the point that they don't agree with them or they don't see a need, then it's suddenly "okay" to suppress them. I've read a disturbing number of posts on this thread alone that are to the effect of
"I own a handgun, but why would an ordinary citizen need an assault weapon anyway?"
... So as long as the suppression of constitutional rights happens to be pertaining to something that you don't feel applies to you, you are okay with it?
Let's put it to a different example... The nineteenth amendment guarantees women equal voting rights to men. So because I am not a woman, should I be okay with repealing that amendment? After all, I'm all for being able to vote, but because I'm not a woman, that amendment doesn't affect me, so if I decide "Why would a woman need to vote anyway," does that mean it should be repealed?
This is a bigger issue than guns. We as Americans need to protect all rights guaranteed to us by our constitution. Allowing the erosion of our rights is a slippery slope that should be protested (and yes... fought) by all citizens, whether they feel they can benefit from those rights or not.
To say that you support gun rights, but then are okay with an AWB just because you don't feel or see the need to own an assault weapon is hypocritical.
Just for the record, I own a small collection of weapons, none of which are assault weapons (although some of my magazines are large enough to be banned). I have no plans to purchase or otherwise aquire any assault weapons. But I'll be right there fighting alongside the "gun nuts" to protect this and any other right.
Thank you SCSInet.
A little update; seems Pelosi and Reid are not in support of such at this time.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-02-26.html
Reid joins Pelosi in opposing weapons ban revival
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 02/26/09 10:17 PM [ET]
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.
"Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future," Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.
It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.
Reid's stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
Holder said during a press conference Wednesday in Phoenix, Ariz., that Obama had made reinstating the ban one of his campaign promises.
"There are obviously a number of things that are — that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so I’m not sure exactly what the sequencing will be," Holder said. "It is something, however, that we still think would be an appropriate thing to do."
The news caught Capitol Hill by surprise, immediately pitting Democrats and Republicans against each other and even exposing deep divides among Democrats. A number of House Democrats lost their seats after being targeted by the National Rifle Association for voting for the 1994 ban.