Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Tonights NBC News: 2 examples of politics over national security

Mar 2, 2004 11:05AM PST

1) Bush White House didn't attack terrorist mastermind on several occasions.
Why? Because he was in Iraq, and a "premature" missile attack might decrease international support for the invasion. Hard to think it could be much lower than it was!
2) Senate kills bill protecting gun makers. The NRA and its Republican allies don't care about criminals and terrorists having access to assault weapons, as long as "good gunowners" get to play with their high-powered toys. The rest of us have to put up with all sorts of inconveniences and restraints on our liberties in the name of "security," but to these folks the right to own any weapon you want is supreme -- they give "extremist" a bad name, and the Republicans' giving in to them marks a new low in political pandering.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Tonights NBC News: 2 examples of politics over national security
Mar 2, 2004 11:46AM PST

There must be more Republicans in the Senate than I thought....a 90 - 8 vote ?

- Collapse -
Re:Tonights NBC News: 2 examples of politics over national security
Mar 2, 2004 12:26PM PST

Hi, Del.

What happened is that on a close vote, two Amendments were added to the NRA bill to grant gunmakers immunity from anything except actual product defects. The Amendments would 1) extend the assault weapons ban, set to expire in September, for an additional 10 years; and 2) extend the requirment for background checks to guns sold at gun shows. After those two amendments were added, a Republican Senator from idaho who's on the NRA board stood up (after receiving an e-mail from Wayne LaPierre) and announced he could no longer support a bill that infringed gun-owners' rights, and all the other NRA supporters fell in line. So in the end both those who opposed the initial bill (supposedly a slim minority) and the NRA supporters voted against it. Bush, btw, says he supports an extension of the assault weapons bill, but knows it's DOA in the House thanks to Delay. I am completely serious when I say that the NRA's position is both irrational and selfish in the extreme. If ever there were a time we don't want uzis and ak-47s sold legally, this is it. And don't give me that "fully automatic weapons are illegal" nonsense -- every gun show has folks selling the converter kits to change semis to full automatic. Polls show about 80% of the population support the extnsion, but that makes no never-mind to the pro-gun extremists, even if it means making truly lethal weapons more realidly available to terrorist and gang-bangers.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Congress similar to Speakeasy.......
Mar 2, 2004 3:10PM PST

...instead of introducing a new bill, someone tacks it on to an existing one. That's how too much of the Congress's work is accomplished. Done to hopefully hide something from public scrutiny too many times. Perhaps a 'line item veto' could apply to all bills reaching the President's desk.

I'm surprised they didn't pass it and claim it was the best they could get at the moment.

Here is SE it's called Off Topic, and is done to divert attention from the main trust of the Thread, or an author is taking an opportunity to bash someone or something.

- Collapse -
Re: Congress similar to Speakeasy.......
Mar 3, 2004 2:04AM PST

Hi, Del.

No, it's a bit more subtle. In a case like this it's not to avoid scrutiny -- it's to force compromise. I certainly admit the validity of your claim -- especially when it's spending, and a bill gets "loaded" with pork. But it's also done to forestall killing in Congress (by bottling up in Committee), or a Presidential veto, of a popular bill that those currently in power don't favor. For example, the only reason that legal aid to the poor and the WIC program survived during the Nixon Administration was that they were attached to "veto-proof bills." In this case the problem is that Tom Delay has already announced that any effort to extend the assault weapons ban will never make it to the House Floor. Isn't that rather too much power for a single Congressman, especially one who isn't the Speaker?

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Once again, Dave...
Mar 2, 2004 8:25PM PST

Dave, this has been said on the forum before:
From the ATF "Yellow book" (Words of the ATF Director): "It must be pointed out that any weapon which shoots automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger is a machinegun as defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 5845(b), the National Firearms Act (NFA).
In addition, the definition of a machinegun also includes any combination of parts from which a machinegun may be assembled, if such parts are in possession or under the control of a person. Any machinegun is subject to the NFA and the possession of an unregistered machinegun could subject the possessor to criminal prosecution.
Dave, specifically from the regs, a NFA firearm is: "Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machineguns; Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machinegun; Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."
Dave, if you get caught in possession (buyer or seller) the penalty is severe: "Violators may be fined not more than $250,000, and imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. In addition, any vessel, vehicle or aircraft used to transport, conceal or possess an unregistered NFA firearm is subject to seizure and forfeiture, as is the weapon itself. [49 U. S. C. 781-788, 26 U. S. C. 5861, 26 U. S. C. 5872]"
Translation for your gun show senario: Heaven help them if they are caught. But I dare say that the same would apply to somecody selling heroin or some such at a gun show.

- Collapse -
Re: Once again, Dave...
Mar 3, 2004 2:15AM PST

Cut the smokescreen, J. The difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic is quite simple. In a semi-automatic, you have to pull the trigger separately once for each shot. With a fully automatic, the weapon fires as long as the trigger is held depressed (unless a shot selector is set to a smaller number of shots).

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Your smoke screen, Dave...
Mar 3, 2004 4:42AM PST

Dave, the smoke screen is yours. It is not "quite simple". To turn a semi-automatic AR-15 into a fully automatic one, even with one of those previously manyfactured "drop-in sears" is not Just a matter of the sear. The trigger assembly, hammer, bolt carrier and selector must also be changed to M-16 components (There may be something I missed).
It's easy to build a fully automatic weapon, the complicated part is to make one that can be switched from simi to full. In a sense, a semi auto "wants" to fire full auto, you have to carefully design and machine parts that stop it from continuing to fire as long as the trigger is held down. This is called the "disconnector", and interrupts the hammer release mechanical chain. There is a well known pistol that can cause you embarrassment if you break it into every component part (like for a severe cleaning) and miss putting something back.
But that is just brushing aside smoke. You painted a gun show senario, and again ignoreed the existing laws and penalties that would come into play with it.
Yes, Dave, I have visited many gun shows. No, I have never bought a firearm at one, I was primarially looking for rare and unusual ammo from my collection, like one of my favorite finds, a round of 2.7mm Kolibri. It can be fun. Look at the picture in the link, I bet you'll be amazed. That's not a joke, the whole auto pistol weight 2-1/2 ounces. That big bullet is a modern .45 ACP for scale.
Picture link: http://www.adamsguns.com/kolibri.htm

- Collapse -
I wish you would just once familiarize yourself with what you talk about.
Mar 2, 2004 9:38PM PST

The so called "Assault Weapons Ban" has done NOTHING to reduce crime or illegal use of firearms. Justice Department figures plainly bear this out.

The "Uzis and AK-47s" that it bans are NOTHING MORE NOR LESS than any other semi-auto firearm and are actually considerably less "powerful" and "deadly" than for instance a 7mm Mag or .300 Win Mag. They simply LOOK similar to their full auto counterparts which have been BANNED for the last 70+ years.

Considering the basic grounds that the Supreme Court long ago used to find sawed off shotguns unprotected, EVERY so called "assault weapon" should be hands off to Congress.

Adding all the ammendments is what killed the bill and it will be reintroduced to be voted up or down without ammendments.

The Ban extension and so called "Gun Show Loophole" ammendments should be offered up as bills to stand or fall on their own--they would fall.

The "Gun Show Loophole" is being sold as some necessity because "dealers" at gun shows do not have to require records checks--this is false and fraudulent. EVERY gun dealer must abide by the requirement regardless of where he/she sells their firearms. The ONLY ones not required to conduct record checks are private owners selling their own personal firearms.

- Collapse -
NT- What are you talking about? Nobody got anything, the gun bill went down in flames.
Mar 2, 2004 12:25PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: the gun bill went down in flames -- which is what angers me.
Mar 2, 2004 12:35PM PST

Hi, James.

The NRA's chutzpah (and Republicans' cowardice in going along) in demanding open access to assault weapons for all is unbelievable after 9/11, especially givenm polls showing the public overwhelmingly in favor of extending the ban. It was addition of the ban to their bill that caused the NRA to change positions just before the vote... And if you don't think this'll be an issue in November, you're sadly mistaken, so it doesn;t even make political sense.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
If the assault weapon ban could have stood on it's own...
Mar 2, 2004 12:42PM PST

...those who supported it wouldn't have stuck it onto this one hoping an unpopular law would pass as an amendment on this more popular bill.

- Collapse -
Re:If the assault weapon ban could have stood on it's own...
Mar 3, 2004 2:10AM PST

James, it isn't "unpopular" except with the hard-core gun lobby. It's not even unpopular in Congress -- the problem is that one man, Tom Delay, has announced that he won't allow such a bill to be considered. As usually happens when a popular bill meets such a roadblock, it gets attached to important regulation until it can be passed. If it didn't have support, it couldn't get attached -- this isn't your middle-of-the-night pork addition that no one owns up to!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
If you knew what you were talking about you would not be angered...
Mar 2, 2004 9:58PM PST

but you don't so you are.

The "Assault Weapons Ban" bans nothing more insidious than semi-auto firearms whose APPEARANCE (not functionality nor capabilities) is not PC. Stating otherwise proves how you have allowed yourself to be sold a bill of goods without even the slightest attempt to check the facts.

My AKs, M11, AR15, AR16s, and Skorpion have killed and threatened less people than Ted Kennedy's cars.

- Collapse -
PS - the 'chutzpah' here is that of the Democrits and reporters...
Mar 2, 2004 10:03PM PST

who fail to mention that the ammendments were offered as a result of the Brady bunch campaign suggestions to kill the bill.

Feinstein and Schumer KNEW when they proposed the ammendments that they could not stand on their own and that they would kill the bill.

Fortunately it will be offered again and under rules that limit ammendments to the bill itself rather than allowing unassociated riders to be attached.

- Collapse -
Time for a new spelling checker, Ed?
Mar 3, 2004 4:55AM PST

It's spelled "Democrats."

Thanks.

- Collapse -
If they lose this one, it's Democrypts. [nt]
Mar 3, 2004 5:15AM PST
Devil
- Collapse -
And if people buy the Bush line, we can call his party 'RepubliCONs'
Mar 3, 2004 5:19AM PST
Wink

How do you make the devil smiley BTW? The only ones I've figured out are Happy Wink Sad
- Collapse -
]:) is how to make the devil smiley
Mar 3, 2004 1:31PM PST
Devil
- Collapse -
Testing it
Mar 3, 2004 10:13PM PST
Devil

Cool!
- Collapse -
Re: Testing it -- There's a list in 'Forum Faq'
Mar 3, 2004 10:22PM PST

Hi, Josh.

The link is in the right-hand margin of the "view message" screens.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Thanks Dave!
Mar 4, 2004 3:39AM PST
Grin
- Collapse -
It's a Freudian slip
Mar 3, 2004 5:30AM PST

Subconsciously, he knows that it's CRITical that the Democrats win in order to put the nation on the right course.

This is how it comes out.

Textbook.

Dan

- Collapse -
Yours I presume as...
Mar 4, 2004 3:37AM PST

it is hypoCRITical to even think that a Democrit victory would do any more than further lessen moral values and that is NOT the way to KEEP this nation on the right course we are presently on.

- Collapse -
You're wrong, yet again.
Mar 4, 2004 3:51AM PST

.

- Collapse -
No, I spelled for accuracy, you spelled for PC...
Mar 4, 2004 3:33AM PST

you are welcome.

- Collapse -
That's funny. Schummer was quoted as being happy with the outcome. Almost
Mar 3, 2004 1:57AM PST

like that's what he wanted. Hmmmmm.