Badnarik Wonders if Bush and Feinstein Know the Meaning of "Infringe"

M

MicroBalrog

New member
Badnarik Wonders if Bush and Feinstein Know the Meaning of "Infringe"


With very few regular days left in this legislative cycle, time is running out for Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John Warner (R-VA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) to extend the Assault Weapon Ban.

Mebane, NC (PRWEB) July 5, 2004 -- While Bush and his staffers have pledged multiple times to sign the bill into law if passed, GOP lawmakers are vowing that it will not be allowed on the House or Senate floor, thus protecting Bush from losing the support of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).

Late last week, the Gun Owners of America issued an alert suggesting that Feinstein may slip her semi-automatic weapon ban to any "appropriate" legislative vehicle. Consideration of such legislation is scheduled to come up as early as Tuesday.

Speaking at a July 4 gun rights rally at Mace Sporting Goods in Mebane, Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik aimed a few short words at not just Feinstein, but Republicans, as well.

“That Feinstein would use parliamentary procedure to slip in yet another attempt to deprive us of one of our most fundamental individual rights is not surprising. The even scarier issue is that Bush has already promised, in advance, to sign such a bill.

Cleary, when an issue as major as the Assault Weapons Ban is supported by Feinstein, Schumer, Bush and Warner, it is yet another indication that both of the major parties are, in fact, the same.”

Badnarik has previously stated that if there is any hot ticket issue for him, it is the right to keep and bear arms. He has pledged that one of his first acts, if elected, is to prioritize repealing the over 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws currently on the books.

Yesterday, in a statement posted on the Badnarik web site blog, campaign spokesperson Stephen Gordon challenged the NRA with, “Should the NRA choose to endorse Bush, after his commitment to sign the Assault Weapon Ban, they will, in fact, be clearly showing their disdain for the Second Amendment and everything the organization claims to represent.

As Bush has already indicated his support to take firearms away from law abiding citizens, to support him now shows clear evidence that the NRA is not a gun rights organization, but merely a fund raising operation for those who blindly follow GOP dictates.”

Badnarik concludes Gordon’s statement with a line from his position paper which states “Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.”

Contact:
David Rostcheck
(972)346-6512
media@badnarik.org
http://www.badnarik.org

Position Paper:
Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/GunControl.php
###
 
Don't worry about the AWB - Bush and company will make it right after the election. He won't be facing another election and can push his agenda, which clearly includes wiping his butt with the Bill of Rights. I can't believe that people here portray Bush as the poster boy for RKBA.
 
I think Bush has one advantage over Kerry: he is not a committed Socialist, and therefore holds gun legislation in general to be a very low priority. Other than that, he really does little to distinguish himself from the Left on a number of issues. He spends money like a Leftist, he expands Government powers like a Leftist, and he takes away our Rights like a Leftist. It is difficult, then, not to label him a Leftist. I think Dubya's only real saving grace in the RKBA matter is that he doesn't really care one way or the other. It is a political lever, and he is a politician. While this means he is willing to mollify the Left by promising to extend the AWB (possibly gambling on it not making it to his desk), he is also intent on pleasing our camp by having Ashcroft go around supporting RKBA as an individual Right. In the end, whoever raises the most voices will surely hold sway. And we have a lot of voices. Words is words, and action is action. We've heard him talk, now let's see what he does.
 
There are a few other Republicans on the list as supporters of renewing the AWB or even making it stronger. I know that my 2 Senators are in favor of it, Dewine and Voinovich. Add those 2 to Warner of Virginia, Dole and prolly a couple of the women from the north that calls themselves republican and it doesn;t look godd for our side. I can think of only 1 democRAT that will vote against the renewal and that is Zell Miller.

Nala
 
John Dingell?

Besides which, we're not talking about the Democrats. We're talking about defeating the BOYN party.

boyn.jpg
 
Really, the argument for "infringe" definitions comes down to a simple problem of whether the term should be used in the literal sense or in the interpreted sense.

All this rhetoric is just fine and dandy, but sort of pointless in the big picture. I realize that the conceptual point is to indicate that Bush and Feinstein don't know what is the proper definition of infringe. While the point is well taken here, it is pointless in the big picture because such folks are not using the same definition of "infringe" in the same context. They know what is their definition of "infringe" is and how it should be contextually interpreted in regard to the 2nd Amendment and they feel it is proper.

It is hard to convince non-gun folks to use the literal and absolute definition of infringe. In part, this is due to the fact that other aspects of the Constition and Bill of Rights are not interpreted literally and absolutely. The classic example that it says that we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. Contrary to modern day interpretationalists, this did not include women. "Men" was not being used as the generic word for "human" but as an actual word pertaining to those who are male by biology. If used as a generic term for humans, then women would have had the same rights as men, but they didnt' at the time, no?

Then, of course, is the aspect that while all men are created equal, slavery was not abolished. Obviously, not all men were created equal via the Constition when it was penned.

So it becomes problematic when we go about stating that this part of the Constition and Bill of Rights needed to be interpretted in the literal sense, but some other part needs to NOT be interpreted in the literal sense. Sadly, when there is no consistent application of either literal or non-literal interpretations, and no formal set of rules that could be applied to determine when each should be used, then we are left where we are today with ongoing debates back and forth all the time, wasting countless hours and $ on an issue that should have been completely resolved when it was originally penned. It is a good fight, but also a waste given that this was not fully resolved back in the 1700s.
 
"And Bush and Feinstein wonder if whats his name knows the meaning of FUTILE! "


Yeah, it is easy for Badnarik to make courageous pronouncements since his campaign is run from his mom's basement! :)
 
Greg Bell, it doesn't matter if he's running it from his Mom's basement or the North Pole. He's right.
Click to expand...

Being right does not make him a winner. And, don't know where Badnarik was in 2000 but W. said then he would sign a renewal of the current law and the NRA endorsed him. Why? Because the NRA knew two things that Badnarik and his third party followers apparently do not - 1)that Congress will have the final say on this one since if they don't extend it it's dead and 2)That W. was not going to push new gun control laws and that Gore would. Given that one of the two were the only ones with a chance of being elected, the choice was simple.

We face the same situation today. The Republicans in the House know why they won in 1994 and do not want to repeat the mistakes of the other party and lose that majority. W. will not push new gun control should he be re-elected and Kerry will. Given they are the only two with a chance to win, the choice is clear. The libertarians need to learn you build a party from the bottom up - not the top down. When they have success at the local and state legislature level, then they will be able to win a state wide election. Until they can do that, they will never win a Federal election and thus never be a force in presidential politics. A vote for Badnarik is a vote for the gun grabbing Kerry. Vote Bush.

Sportsmen for Bush

Gun Raffle
 
Being right does not make him a winner.
Click to expand...

Politics is not a horse race. You don't vote for the guy you think will win. You vote for the guy you think is right.

Until they can do that,
Click to expand...

Libertarians have won several local elections already.

A vote for Badnarik is a vote for the gun grabbing Kerry.
Click to expand...

Liberals I know tell me a vote for Badnarik is a vote for George "Patriot Act" Bush. Are they wrong?
 
Politics is not a horse race. You don't vote for the guy you think will win. You vote for the guy you think is right.
Click to expand...

Politics is most assuredly a horse race. Those interested in advancing their cause calculate which candidates are viable then after determining that decide which of the viable candidates best represents their views and then do all they can to get them elected.

Libertarians have won several local elections already.
Click to expand...

Must be the best kept secret in the country. Having said that, don't know of any Libertarians that have been elected Governor or Attorney General in a state - the usual stepping stones to congress, US Senate or the Presidency. Virginia did not start regularly electing Republicans to statewide office until they elected more than the 5 or 6 members of the state legislature that was the norm in the first 3/4 of the 20th century. The fact that you point out Liberariarns have won several local elections does not disprove the thesis of my original comment - that Libertarians are trying to build a party from the top down by running a candidate for President when they have no success at the lower offices to show the electorate that they are viable.

Liberals I know tell me a vote for Badnarik is a vote for George "Patriot Act" Bush. Are they wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes. We need only look at what happened in South Dakota in 2002 when Thune lost by some 500 votes to Dem Johnson and the Libertarian candidate pulled about 2000 votes.
 
"Politics is not a horse race. You don't vote for the guy you think will win. You vote for the guy you think is right."

It is always a choice for the lesser of two evils. No candidate will share 100% of your views, ever. Given this, it is foolish to waste your vote on a third party who not only has no chance of winning, but no chance of even making a decent showing. You are just sparing the guy you dislike the most a vote against him.

"Liberals I know tell me a vote for Badnarik is a vote for George "Patriot Act" Bush. Are they wrong?"


No! They are absolutely right. An absolute waste. If you are an anti-gun, anti-capitalist environmentalist you would be stupid to vote Green (or especially Libertarian!). Nader voters are wasting their votes...and as a Republican it makes me very happy to have Nader in the race.
 
Yes. We need only look at what happened in South Dakota in 2002 when Thune lost by some 500 votes to Dem Johnson and the Libertarian candidate pulled about 2000 votes.
Click to expand...

This is only assuming that if those guy wouldn't have voted Libertarian, they would have voted Republican.

Not necessarily so.
 
While Bush and his staffers have pledged multiple times to sign the bill into law if passed, GOP lawmakers are vowing that it will not be allowed on the House or Senate floor, thus protecting Bush from losing the support of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that if President Bush signed the/re-newed AWB into law that the NRA would quit supporting him. I'm sure the NRA would take the position that President Bush would still be the Lesser of the Two Evils, but just not as much Lesser than before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top