TheRPGSite

HR 1022 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:)

A bill introduced on 13 February in the United States Congress proposes to not only reinstate the AWB of 1994, but also "improve" it, in order to make criminals more heavily armed than those of us who follow the law, apparently.

Quote`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

The above is may favorite part of this stupid bill.  The emphasized part particularly makes me mad.

By the way, I know some of you (maybe many of you) are not Americans and don't have a problem with banning guns that "look mean."  That's fine for your country.  And I don't want any of you mentioning "sporting purposes" as the only legitimate use for a firearm either.  Here in the United States, we have the RIGHT to BEAR arms.  THat's BEAR arms, not "enjoy a touch of fun in firearm sports."

Quote from: joewolzHR 1022 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:)

A bill introduced on 13 February in the United States Congress proposes to not only reinstate the AWB of 1994, but also "improve" it, in order to make criminals more heavily armed than those of us who follow the law, apparently.



The above is may favorite part of this stupid bill.  The emphasized part particularly makes me mad.

By the way, I know some of you (maybe many of you) are not Americans and don't have a problem with banning guns that "look mean."  That's fine for your country.  And I don't want any of you mentioning "sporting purposes" as the only legitimate use for a firearm either.  Here in the United States, we have the RIGHT to BEAR arms.  THat's BEAR arms, not "enjoy a touch of fun in firearm sports."

You're right for once. I agree completely and do believe that the second ammendment was put there to see to it that the citizens could, if need be, overthrow the government by force.

Looking at america today I think we can see why the founders may have wanted to make this possible.

Also, the second amendment is the second ammendment for a good reason: The 10 ammendments, AKA the bill of rights, were created in order of importance.

The founders believed that free speech, and the ability of citizens to petition and seek redress of grievance, was the MOST important thing, so it came first.

The second amendment is there to protect the first amendment bu giving the citizens the power to fight the government if it tried to impose on the first amendment.

Most people are too ignorant to know that, but I had a better teacher than most people did.

I've heard some policy geeks talking like it won't even get out of committee.  The Dems put a lot of gun-friendly people in the House.  Even they aren't stupid enough to go after guns without a friend in the White House.

Which is why I won't be voting for Rudy, BTW.

Not a gun rights guy, Fonkaygarry?

I also doubt it will make past committee, but it's still scary that they're trying something this awful!

Quote from: joewolzNot a gun rights guy, Fonkaygarry?

Dunno why you'd think that.  If it's what I said about Rudy, I understand that he's no ally of gun owners.

I'm not worried about the bill, myself.  Even with the dem victory in 2006, there were some modest gains made in the House WRT gun rights.

Not that I won't stock up on 30-rounders and a couple of AR lowers if the elections in 2008 should go poorly. :D

Quote from: fonkaygarryDunno why you'd think that.  If it's what I said about Rudy, I understand that he's no ally of gun owners.

I'm not worried about the bill, myself.  Even with the dem victory in 2006, there were some modest gains made in the House WRT gun rights.

Not that I won't stock up on 30-rounders and a couple of AR lowers if the elections in 2008 should go poorly. :D

As a Dem myself, I'm always confused when a Republican is anti-gun...but it happens.  Sorry.

Personally, the thing in that ban that worries me is the quote, but number two is:

Quote(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

I wonder how that will go down with some of the interchangeable mags like the Sig (I think) .40 standard 10rd. mag that doubles as a 12rd. 9mm mag.

This is another one of those stupid fucking ideas that I intend to ignore.

I firmly believe that the 2nd Ammendment is the reason Strunk and White are so harsh about misplaced commas and run-on sentences.  I mean, would it have hurt to split it up?

It won't get anywhere near passing.  The Dems that were voted in this term are overall much more gun-friendly in composition than people would think.

Do many people use assault rifles as sporting weapons?  How?

Serious question, I mean presumably people don't mow down deer with M16s.

I think the way of interpreting the second Ammendement means only that the people have the right to form well regulated militias would actually be more permissive of guns.

How can there be an effective militia without AntiTank rockets, 30mm Automatic Cannons, shoulder fired AA missiles , Sniper rifles etc.?

So for the letter of the law, I postulate US governement should allow all  infantry weapons.

Elsewise there can be no Militia that has any fighting chance.

Settembrini, that is my interpretation as well.

Goddammit, Sett posted my point while I was coming home from work.

But yeah, I was thinking about that. If bearing arms is prevention against governmental tyranny, what precisely is an automatic rifle going to avail you against a modern military? I mean, they can read your newspaper over your shoulder from orbit if it strikes them to, then proceed to drop a missile on you from miles off-shore; what chance will a group of militiamen have to move troops and supplies in the way a full-scale insurrection requires?

Quote from: Christmas ApeBut yeah, I was thinking about that. If bearing arms is prevention against governmental tyranny, what precisely is an automatic rifle going to avail you against a modern military?

Ask the Iraqis?

During the holocaust, the jews in thw warsaw ghetto held off the nazis for weeks with a few civillian firearms. In fact they resisted the nazis longer than some countries did.


Seems the nazis were afraid of going in after jews who could fight back.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAsk the Iraqis?

Killing soldiers in a foreign country who have no more orders than "drive around and patrol looking for insurgents" is probably a lot easier than overthrowing the entire weight of the US army - and I'm fairly there would be very few soldiers left off-duty if it came to an insurrection against the government - and that they're racking up a body count doesn't mean they're winning. Does anybody really think they'll take back the country if the Americans don't leave? Or if they had a lack of foreign aid? Or if the local population didn't harbor a cultural (and otherwise deservedly earned) antipathy towards their foes?

Leaving alone that explosive booby-traps and suicide attacks are doing most of their work, and I presume a freedom-oriented American insurrection wouldn't be blowing up malls full of uninvolved American citizens. Or at least, not without abandoning the principles they're fighting for.

Quote from: Christmas ApeKilling soldiers in a foreign country who have no more orders than "drive around and patrol looking for insurgents" is probably a lot easier than overthrowing the entire weight of the US army

Ask the Somalis then

Quote from: Dominus NoxDuring the holocaust, the jews in thw warsaw ghetto held off the nazis for weeks with a few civillian firearms. In fact they resisted the nazis longer than some countries did.
 
 
Seems the nazis were afraid of going in after jews who could fight back.

The Warsaw Uprising is a tragic, amazing, and uplifting story of WWII all at once.  I'm trying to think of the book I read not too long ago on the topic--perhaps you'd like it.

Quote from: Christmas ApeKilling soldiers in a foreign country who have no more orders than "drive around and patrol looking for insurgents" is probably a lot easier than overthrowing the entire weight of the US army - and I'm fairly there would be very few soldiers left off-duty if it came to an insurrection against the government - and that they're racking up a body count doesn't mean they're winning. Does anybody really think they'll take back the country if the Americans don't leave? Or if they had a lack of foreign aid? Or if the local population didn't harbor a cultural (and otherwise deservedly earned) antipathy towards their foes?

Leaving alone that explosive booby-traps and suicide attacks are doing most of their work, and I presume a freedom-oriented American insurrection wouldn't be blowing up malls full of uninvolved American citizens. Or at least, not without abandoning the principles they're fighting for.

Not quite right. Many in the anti-government movement have accepted that deaths among non combatant civillians are likely, and accept it.

The americans who don't resist the governmetn are gasically supporting it thru compliance, taxes, etc. As such, they're fair game in the war against the government and the corporate oligarchy that runs it.

But the main target will be the leaders of the oligarchy since they're more important than the meat puppet government they run the country thru.

Here's (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html) a link to a military survey that askes US military personal some questions about how willing they'd be to submit to UN domination, and if they would fire on US citizens who were refusing to surrender their guns to government confiscation.

This is why we need weapons in the first place, and why the second amendment was written.

Quote from: BalbinusDo many people use assault rifles as sporting weapons?  How?

Serious question, I mean presumably people don't mow down deer with M16s.

Well, I go to competitions with my SKS and do okay.  I know many people who use their SKSes to shoot wild hogs and deer.  I've seen people use AR-15s (the civilian equivalent of the M16) for deer hunting.  The AR-15 is an extremely accurate rifle, as is the M16, but in the US civilians can't own automatic weapons unless they are a legitimate dealer and pay outrageous amounts for licensing.    

Hunting isn't the point, nor are guns meant to be owned for "sporting purposes."  If I want a Beretta 92FS 9mm handgun, which is the US military's primary combat handgun, to keep in my home for defense that is allowed currently.   Same with my SKS, which is a  Soviet combat rifle.

Quote from: joewolzWell, I go to competitions with my SKS and do okay.  I know many people who use their SKSes to shoot wild hogs and deer.  I've seen people use AR-15s (the civilian equivalent of the M16) for deer hunting.  The AR-15 is an extremely accurate rifle, as is the M16, but in the US civilians can't own automatic weapons unless they are a legitimate dealer and pay outrageous amounts for licensing.    

Hunting isn't the point, nor are guns meant to be owned for "sporting purposes."  If I want a Beretta 92FS 9mm handgun, which is the US military's primary combat handgun, to keep in my home for defense that is allowed currently.   Same with my SKS, which is a  Soviet combat rifle.

You know, the whole hunting thing really is a crock. I don't hunt, I've never had an urge to kill an animal with more than two legs. We should be open and honest about it and say we want guns, including "Assault weapons" so if the government passes laws to violate our rights and sends agents to enforce and impose those laws on us we can shoot them.

I mean, let's be honest about it. As for the inevitable counter cry, we should simply say "If people don't want to be shot, don't try imposing laws on us that violate our rights."

I have no problem with people shooting those who violate their rights. Take prohibition, for example. The fedgov had zero business imposing the ban on alcohol on american adults, but was driven to it by shrill religious fanatics. AFAIC the "bootleggers" were heroes for freedom and had every right to drop the hammer on every "agent" who came after them.

Likewise I have no problem with drug users defending themselves from laws that violate their right to kill themselves. Maybe if enough DEA agents got wasted while trying to impose unworkable unconstitutional and ineffective laws on people, the system would figure out that those laws don't work, and stop passing/trying to enforce them.

Then there'd be no black market for drugs, no profit motive for criminal gangs to fight over and the druggies, god bless them, would quickly kill themselves off thru overdose, solving the whole issue.

Quote from: Dominus NoxHere's (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html) a link to a military survey that askes US military personal some questions about how willing they'd be to submit to UN domination, and if they would fire on US citizens who were refusing to surrender their guns to government confiscation.

This is why we need weapons in the first place, and why the second amendment was written.

I thought Kent State University had already answered the shooting on US citizens questions.

Quote from: BalbinusI thought Kent State University had already answered the shooting on US citizens questions.

Well, that was a national guard (weekend warrior) commandant who got out of hand and had a personal vendetta against the protestors, or "commie traitors" as he saw them. The government sanctioned his actions later, but didn't order them in advance.

Quote from: joewolzA bill introduced on 13 February in the United States Congress proposes to not only reinstate the AWB of 1994, but also "improve" it, in order to make criminals more heavily armed than those of us who follow the law, apparently.

I think that anyone in the United States who supports banning the personal ownership of guns should put a nice sign in front of their house that says, "This house is a gun free zone."

Quote from: joewolzHere in the United States, we have the RIGHT to BEAR arms.  THat's BEAR arms, not "enjoy a touch of fun in firearm sports."

If you read the early drafts of the Bill of Rights by Madison and Mason, it becomes much more clear why the "militia" clause is there.  Madison's earlier draft of the First Amendment read:

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

George Mason's version read:

"That the People have a right to Freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments; that the Freedom of the Press is one of the great Bulwarks of Liberty, and ought not to be violated."

Madison's earlier draft of the second amendment read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

George Mason's draft read:

"That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."

And, yes, it's clear from Mason's draft that he was concerned that the government would take guns away from people and felt that a Standing Army (something that we now take for granted, even though it's restricted by the Constitution -- the US Army must be "reauthorized" every two years) was a bigger menace to people than the people bearing arms.

What I find fascinating is that if the Bill of Rights had retailed the "as one of the great bulwarks of liberty" just as it retained the abbreviated, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as an explanatory clause, if the purpose of the Militia clause would be more clear.  Of course I think it should also be clear to anyone who understands English that the Militia clause does not qualify the rights clause of the second amendment and if they want to ban guns, the proper way to do it is not through the courts but through an amendment followed by legislation.

Quote from: BalbinusDo many people use assault rifles as sporting weapons?  How?

Serious question, I mean presumably people don't mow down deer with M16s.

not to split hairs, but there is a difference in an assault rifle and an "assault weapon".

The former is a rifle that is capable of fully automatic fire, which has been banned since the mid 30s unless you have a class c (or is it 3?) dealers license.

the later consists of semiautomatic weapons that look mean. functionally there is little difference between a semi automatic hunting rifle and an SKS, or other semi automatic military style rifles.

this is all done (again) to make it look like the politicians care, but in the meantime it goes after the law abiding and does nothing to stop the criminal element.

Quote from: joewolzIf I want a Beretta 92FS 9mm handgun, which is the US military's primary combat handgun, to keep in my home for defense that is allowed currently.

Bear in mind that there are people who do not thing you should own guns for self-defense and there are people who do not think you should have the right to use force in self-defense.  Frankly, I think the right  to use force to protect yourself from an attack is a more fundamental right than free speech.

If Gun control laws could work I'd be all for them. Unfortunately, it's the nature of criminals to break the law, and the nature of law abiding citizens to follow it. all gun control does is put more power in the hands of the criminals.

Screw gun control. Stricter penalties for gun related crime would be much better. Like if you kill someone with a knife you get the death penalty, but fi you kill them with a gun you get the death penalty twice.

Quote from: John MorrowBear in mind that there are people who do not thing you should own guns for self-defense and there are people who do not think you should have the right to use force in self-defense.

I omitted your stance, so I can fully address the point, so this isn't a dig on you, sir.

I find this sentiment ludicrous.  Absolutely without thought.  I don't understand how anyone can think that making guns illegal to own could possibly have an effect on gun ownership within the criminal element.

I know that the state level and local level differences in gun laws contribute to this, but look at Chicago for a perfect example of a gun ban in effect.  You are not allowed to own a pistol in the city of Chicago, or in Cook county. Unless you are a peace officer, licensed PI, or a bodyguard of the Mayor...however, pistols are still common enough in "bad neighborhoods" that the law is enforced on a daily basis.  Combine with this the absolutely racist enforcement of the Unlawful Use of Weapons Act (UUW)  and you have a  volatile mixture.

The UUW in Illinois, for those not in the know, is the most commonly cited reason for random traffic stops of African Americans, after "probable cause" for narcotics possession.

Nox, your example has many failings.

But the most important one: If having an armed Joewolz in your country increases freedom, then, by all means, he oughta have a Stinger and a Antitank Gun too. You know those RPGs the Iraquis use really help them against Helicopters etc.

And especially Hand Grenades should be legalized, as they are of utmost importance to any insurrectionist and urban warfare.

All in all, Joewolz should be allowed to bear Handgrenades, at the very least.

Er, Settembrini, you may be unaware of this, but hand grenades (and some anti-tank weapons) _are_ legal in some states.

That actually makes sense.

Quote from: Dominus NoxHere's (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html) a link to a military survey that askes US military personal some questions about how willing they'd be to submit to UN domination, and if they would fire on US citizens who were refusing to surrender their guns to government confiscation.

First, the term "UN domination" was not used in the survey.  Second, here's a quote from the introduction on that page:

QuoteThe July 11 New American ("Police State Update", p. 10), discusses a telephone interview with the marine, who said that he was not aware of similar surveys being administered at other bases and that his impression was that the survey was research for a [Navy] commander's master's degree.

In other words, a survey administered at a military base to military personnel, but not authored or administered by either the US Department of Defense or any branch of the US military.

I also noted how the survey really kind of lays low until the final question delivers the punch.  More than a little provocative, which isn't a good thing in a survey that's trying to avoid imparting bias.

!i!

There was a Supreme Court case in the mid 1930s in the US that decided United States citizens should be allowed to be armed "equitably" with the average Infantryman in the United States army.  Unfortunately, the decision and the case have been ignored since the NFA passed right around the same time.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineEr, Settembrini, you may be unaware of this, but hand grenades (and some anti-tank weapons) _are_ legal in some states.

Which states?  I know a license can be obtained for "destructive devices" on the federal level, but what states allows them?

Quote from: joewolzWhich states?  I know a license can be obtained for "destructive devices" on the federal level, but what states allows them?

I don't keep super-up-to-date on these things (I am a Canadian, and I don't own any guns), but I was told that Colorado would let you own hand grenades if you were properly registered as someone allowed to own explosives, or if you had a military collection. There may be other states that are similar.

QuoteThere was a Supreme Court case in the mid 1930s in the US that decided United States citizens should be allowed to be armed "equitably" with the average Infantryman in the United States army.

Holy smokes!

I´ll leave you back with this classic second ammendement conundrum, while I write up a ultra sweet adventure idea for a TL-15, Law Level 0 World.

Quote from: SettembriniNox, your example has many failings.

But the most important one: If having an armed Joewolz in your country increases freedom, then, by all means, he oughta have a Stinger and a Antitank Gun too. You know those RPGs the Iraquis use really help them against Helicopters etc.

And especially Hand Grenades should be legalized, as they are of utmost importance to any insurrectionist and urban warfare.

All in all, Joewolz should be allowed to bear Handgrenades, at the very least.

Well, if the government is going to use tanks against the people, then maybe the people do need anti tank weapons. if they're going to use helicopters against us then maybe we do need stinger missiles.

Quote from: Dominus NoxWell, if the government is going to use tanks against the people, then maybe the people do need anti tank weapons. if they're going to use helicopters against us then maybe we do need stinger missiles.

Certainly a "people's army" needs such munitions if they are to deliver a credible threat to the state.  However, is this army of the people going to be seen as heroic "freedom fighters" or as guerillas? (or, in today's hot-button-speakm "terrorists")  For that matter, how are they going to behave?  Isn't that the real topic underlying this thread? What will the people do with access to military arms?

!i!

I imagine that there'd be a number of military units that would "defect" to the populace should the government ever take this path, and they'd bring their grear and weapons with them. NAtional Guard units in particular.

There's the small matter that every member of the United States Military swears to defend the Constitution.  Most of my direct relations were in uniform and they beat that into my head.

Any would-be First Consul would have a staggering number of military and ex-military personnel to deal with before he could plant his ass in the Golden Throne of Life.  (Do you have any concept how much damage even a single frogman could do to an attempted coup?)

It would be more realistic to construct a robot army out of coffee cans and sexual malice, then use them to create a military dictatorship.

All it takes is for one well trained and dedicated military man to decide to oppose the New Order and whatever silly person thought they could get away with it would be either living in a cave of their own making or a smear on the wall.

It's worth pointing out that a totalitarian coup has been attempted in the US before, and it was in fact General Smedley Butler (one of the great heroes of the American Republic) who saved the day. On the other hand, the conspirators were never prosecuted or punished in any way for their actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

This shit again? The first ban was a fucking joke and so will this one. I own a rifle that is legal under the old ban and change 2 parts and presto its pre-ban.

They need to stir up more shit over this so I can sell a few of my rifles off at a profit. :rolleyes:

Ha! You people think fascism isn't coming to america? What makes you think it isn't already here in large part?

My god the things that big business and government have imposed om people already would have been considered fascism in the 50's. if you told people in the 50's that employers could force employees to be tested for tobacco, a legal product, and fired if they used it at home, they's have said that could never happen in america.

Mandatory seat belt laws? Mandatory smoke detector laws? No knock warrants? The ability to sneak into someone's home while they're not there and never let them know it was searched? The ability for the pres to order people held without trial, evidenmce or contact forever?

All would have been called fascism and impossible a few decades ago, now they're here.

Quote from: Dominus NoxHa! You people think fascism isn't coming to america? What makes you think it isn't already here in large part?

My god the things that big business and government have imposed om people already would have been considered fascism in the 50's. if you told people in the 50's that employers could force employees to be tested for tobacco, a legal product, and fired if they used it at home, they's have said that could never happen in america.

Mandatory seat belt laws? Mandatory smoke detector laws? No knock warrants? The ability to sneak into someone's home while they're not there and never let them know it was searched? The ability for the pres to order people held without trial, evidenmce or contact forever?

All would have been called fascism and impossible a few decades ago, now they're here.

Yup, and not a shot fired. So it seems the Right to Bear Arms is useless for its intended purpose. Bread and circuses FTW.

Oh yeah, don't forget that cure supreme court ruling which lets the state or city take your property and sell it to walmart, shutting you out of the profits generated from the sale.

If you'd told people the state could do that in the 70's, there would have been a wave of disbelief.

Quote from: Dominus NoxOh yeah, don't forget that cure supreme court ruling which lets the state or city take your property and sell it to walmart, shutting you out of the profits generated from the sale.

Well, let's be fair - I don't think Wal-Mart was specified in the Kelo decision.

Wait, who am I talking to... fair? Heh.

Henry Ford used to spy on his employees; entire divisions of FoMoCo specialized in it.  Evidence of alcohol use (among a list of violations) led to termination.

Habeas Corpus was suspended in the Civil War.  I've yet to see anything we have currently that rivals the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Republic stands, and will long after George Bush and his boys are just faded pictures on the walls of history classrooms.

Try again.

Quote from: fonkaygarryHenry Ford used to spy on his employees; entire divisions of FoMoCo specialized in it.  Evidence of alcohol use (among a list of violations) led to termination.

Habeas Corpus was suspended in the Civil War.  I've yet to see anything we have currently that rivals the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Republic stands, and will long after George Bush and his boys are just faded pictures on the walls of history classrooms.

Try again.

Bush has basically declared himself above the law, openly stating he is not bound by deciscions congress makes. Even lincoln didn't go that far.

Try again.

Quote from: Dominus NoxBush has basically declared himself above the law, openly stating he is not bound by deciscions congress makes. Even lincoln didn't go that far.

Cite?

And this IS the same Lincoln that suspended Habeas Corpus, improsioned or exiled members of Congress, shut down newspapers, and had Federal troops fire on his own citizens - right? Tall guy, scraggly beard?

You sure you wouldn't be more at home on democraticunderground or the Daily Kos?

Quote from: Dominus NoxAll would have been called fascism and impossible a few decades ago, now they're here.

There was plenty of stuff that would curl your toes going on just a few decades ago.  For example, see this 1938 article about Jersey City Mayor Frank "I am the Law!" Hague (http://www.cityofjerseycity.org/hague/life/life020738.shtml).

Quote from: fonkaygarryHabeas Corpus was suspended in the Civil War.  I've yet to see anything we have currently that rivals the Alien and Sedition Acts.

And what most people who complain about Lincoln (and Bush, for that matter) suspending Habeas Corpus is that the Constitution explicitly allows the suspension of Habeas Corpus "in cases of rebellion or invasion" when "the public safety may require it".  While it may be a stretch to call 9/11 an "invasion", it's no stretch to call the Civil War a "rebellion".  In fact, most people who wax poetic about rights seem to have never actually read the Constitution or they'd realize that many of it's provisions are qualified like that.  (ADDED:  And, for the record, the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights are not qualified, except that the 1st is specifically directed to apply to Congress).

Quote from: WerekoalaCite?

A quick Google brings up this headline at the very top:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/)

It was the talk of the nation about a year ago.  Individual interpretations are, of course, welcome.  This is a free country after all. :)

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaA quick Google brings up this headline at the very top:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/)

It was the talk of the nation about a year ago.  Individual interpretations are, of course, welcome.  This is a free country after all. :)

!i!

So this means he's not bound by ANY decisions by Congress? Bit of a stretch.

Again, this whole impending Bush Empire thing is the most fevered of dreams from the wacko Left. He'll be gone soon enough, then we can have 4 - 8 years of someone else blaming all their failures on Bush's incompetence. He's done a service to the NEXT president, at least.

Bush seems to think he can do anything he wants to in iraq now that the 'war' is won.

he forgets that after ww2, the president went to congress to get the marshall plan to rebuild germany and europe approved, he did not act unilaterally as bush seems to feel entitled too.

It's time the democrat controlled congress yanks bush's leash a little, and demands he start doing something constructive over there or get our people out.

Also, I want to pull the troops out of iraq because I still believe they're over there just to pump more taxpayer money into halliburton, and to train US troops to surpress US citizens when, hopefully, they start to become disatisfied with the current "Pick which meat puppet you want to rubberstamp the laws and policies big business wants imposed on you" political system/social order we have in america now.