Tester responds to proposed Obama assault weapon ban

THANK YOU, JON! (0.00 / 0)

Can't we just drop all the ban talk now?  Even the TALK ALONE will have some very, very serious repercussions come election time, and well they should.  It's a non-issue in search of politicians who will wear signs on their backs that say 'kick my ass, PUHlease'!  

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 17:32:36 PM UTC

It isn't a "non-issue" for many. (0.00 / 0)

Just one example of why this is important.  U.S. assault weapons are arming drug cartels and creating massive violence in Mexico:  

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...

We spend a lot of time complaining about Mexican immigration, but don't think too much about how our policies affect Mexico.  


Shahid Haque-Hausrath
Border Crossing Law Blog
www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog

---

by: shaquehausrath @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 17:58:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yo se perfectamente bien que pasa en la frontera, (0.00 / 0)

PERO, no es la responsabilidad de los estados unidos  resolver los problemas de mejico.  Again, Mexico will have to handle their OWN problems.  Their problems can NOT influence OUR laws.  They are two seperate issues.  Now, I'll admit there may be some things to prevent guns crossing the border, but that does NOT have anything to do with my assualt rifle.  You're off base on this one, Shaq.  Please  don't attempt a guilt trip because of the Second Amendment.  I, too, have tremendous sympathies for the Mexican people  in this current crisis.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 18:07:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Criminals helping other criminals... (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Lawman!

U.S. assault weapons are arming drug cartels and creating massive violence in Mexico

That's awesome!!  You blame the firearms, not the drug cartels (CRIMINALS) for the violence...do you blame Ford when an Explorer hits a patch of ice and takes out a telephone pole?!  

Obama wants the AWB back permanently...Tester will eventually fall inline and do what he's told.  Unless they bide their time and try to take more seats in the Senate, which would allow the likes of Tester and Baucus to stray to the other side of the aisle and not piss-off their constituents.

Keep fightin' the good fight, Larry!  Someday you might be able to convince those on your side that the 2nd Amendment/The Bill of Rights is not a state's rights issue.  

I'm sure the Left's opposition to the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the fear of an armed populous to combat a possibly despotic administration...nah, it's got nothin' to do with that!

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 19:01:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you insinuating (0.00 / 0)

that fervent assault weapon advocates like yourself are arming themselves "to combat a possibly despotic administration?"

Judging by a lot of the tripe coming out of luny right-wing factions, and talk of armed insurrection, I'd say some of this talk begins to border on treason.

Rant about the 2nd all you want--ranting (and that is what you do) is harmless. Begin to use scare tactics like armed uprisings, and you just may find yourself under investigation in a grand jury.

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 19:32:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No insinuations...No treason... (0.00 / 0)

Just stating the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Go ahead and ask Larry, you both sit on the same side of the aisle...maybe he can talk some sense into you.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 20:05:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your concept of an "aisle" has no meaning to me... (0.00 / 0)

Where you have RINOs, we have DINOs: those rejected by the republican party and assumed to now be part of the democratic party (you know, people like Bohlinger, and every other republican that doesn't toe the conservative cred), even if they are independents or libertarians.

So don't assume that because Larry and I may agree on some things, that we "sit on the same side of the aisle." And I don't need him explaining the 2nd (or some whack job "original intent" diatribe) to me, either.

But I do know that grand jury investigations for assault weapons conspiracies are no fun.

And invoking "original intent" of the 2nd is no shield against being investigated for conspiracy.

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 20:33:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, JC, (0.00 / 0)

are you saying that you and Tester don't share the same side of the aisle either???  For you see, Jon and I agree on most everything near as I can tell. (yes, I know Jon)  But I will tell you this, I'm old.  Fifty-seven to be exact.  And I've been anti-gun control since I was a little kid, as were ALL Dems I knew.  'Course, they were all WW II vets too.  And they liked guns.  I'm not real sure when gun control became part of he Dem agenda, but it's real  stupid to be there for LOTS of reasons  which I won't enumerate.  But again, historically, being anti-gun control is NOT being anti-Dem.  I'm not sure where you got that idea.  I sit on the DEM side of the aisle, and for you to say otherwise is bullshit.  You apparently were raised far different than I was.  On many issues people travel on an evolutionarly scale.  We all come to different viewpoints at different times.  Even though you are for gun control, I would never say that you're not a Dem.  You're simply WAY down there on your evolutaionary path.  That's all.  Peace.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 20:51:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Calm down Larry (0.00 / 0)

I'm just telling Rusty that I reject his "aisle" dichotomy of political positioning. Don't read anything more into my statement than that. I wasn't saying you weren't a dem.

I'm not engaging in this "if you are a dem, then you believe this", and "if you're not a dem, you believe that" kind of tripe. I just don't think that Rusty has any rationale to tell you to school me on gun issues, just because he thinks we "sit on the same side of the aisle."

So none of you know anything more about my stances on gun issues then before. And I reject the dichotomy of "you are for gun control" or you are not.

And I'm almost as old as you, and we weren't raised much differently. I'm an old GF boy, fyi, and we've crossed paths more than a few times over the years.

---

by: JC @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 00:32:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure it is, JC (0.00 / 0)

Just ask Randy Weaver.

The part Rusty doesn't get is that a bullet doesn't care one bit about 'original intent'.  If he and Hannity want to foment an armed rebellion, let them.  Treason is defined by those who have the tanks, and that wouldn't be Rusty.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 20:53:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, you can invoke it (0.00 / 0)

but that won't keep you out of a grand jury proceeding. And grand juries can be very unpleasant. Particularly when you are a target, and you have no idea what is going on.

---

by: JC @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 00:35:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How are they exporting or even buying assault weapons? (0.00 / 0)

I would be correct to conjecture that you are ignorantly and wrongly defining what an "assault weapon" is.  There is no need to ban them, they already require a class 3.  They require complex licenses and a ton of cash.  The former ban was literally based off of pictures of items that looked "scary".  Flash suppressors, pistol grips, etc.  It also wrongly and prejudicially used the term "assault rifle" for certain types of semi-automatic weapons.  This would be like using the term "Truck Ban" for a pedal bicycle.  The name of the bill should be illegal, as it invokes bias and shows outrageous ignorance on any mindless follower...like you Shahid.  

---

by: Widowmaker @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 21:28:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too harsh, man. (0.00 / 0)

Shahid is correct in his facts.  Too many (real) assault weapons are making their way to Mexico.  But they are being driven by American arms dealers (as well as Chinese, and God knows who else.)  You are correct that the "ban" wouldn't do a damned thing about that.  But taking after Shahid for supposed ignorance is not helpful, and not likely accurate.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 22:45:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This one just invokes me (0.00 / 0)

I've been saving my pennies for a DPMS .308 but I'm still another year away (or two) away.  This has me thinking "should I buy it on credit", "is it too much of a gamble to wait".  I just hate that feeling.  I did call Testers office to tell him "good job".  That was a great Montana response.  Nothing overally sophisticated sounding, or over explanation.  "Baloney".  Classic.

---

by: Widowmaker @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 23:08:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AR-15s are up 50% over the past 2 years (0.00 / 0)

How much would it set you back if you picked up the DPMS today?

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 00:01:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thats the problem (0.00 / 0)

I managed to buy a real nice AR-15 setup 3 years ago.  I foolishly spent 3K on the rifle plus ACOG to relieve some glory days.  I'm eying this AR-10 now.  I already have the dies and brass for the .308.  Just gotta buy the bullets.  As for the rifle, a nice setup is $1200 before scope.  So with a half decent 3x9 I'll throw down $1500.  I personally watched a "black rifle" competition and the winner shot over 1000 yards with extreme accuracy with a DMPS .308 and just a Leopold scope on it.  I was sold.

---

by: Widowmaker @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 00:41:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good price (0.00 / 0)

I'd pick it up now, if I had the cash.

How easy are AR-10 mags to find?  I remember during the '94 AWB, older .308 mags (M1 perhaps, not sure) could be sent to ArmaLite and "altered" so they'd work in their AR-10s.  Do the newer AR-10s still not have a forward assist?

A buddy of mine has a Springfield Socom, now that's a sweet rifle.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 00:54:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If his "facts" are true (0.00 / 0)

But they are irrelevant to the actual ban, then why push the ban?

Or even use the drug cartels as an excuse?  I understand the NYT's doing that as they're lazy fact checkers and probably legally retarded to boot, but Shahid lives in Montana, right?  If he doesn't know the difference, he should.


- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 00:18:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

~sigh~ (0.00 / 0)

Syd, a hella bunch of the weapons that Shahid is concerned with were manufactured in other countries, and altered with receivers made right here in the USofA.  The 'ban' would theoretically do away with such firearms.

It is completely fucking stupid to denounce such concerns without so much as understanding them.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 01:12:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The assault ban is (0.00 / 0)

about aesthetics.  Period.  And you know it.

It wouldn't impact the firearms he's worried about, plus it would impact law abiding citizens, NOT outlaws on the border.

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 16:12:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like MarkT(rotsky) has stated before... (0.00 / 0)

Listen closely - I won't repeat: It's a wedge issue.

http://mtpundit.com/2008/12/17...

It's not surprising that the discussion has been shutdown.  I'm amazed that Stevens even broached the subject in the fist place.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 19:26:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing's been "shut down", Rusted (0.00 / 0)

We've just been ignoring you.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 20:07:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Same difference. n/t (0.00 / 0)

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 21:20:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

??? (0.00 / 0)

"Shut down"? Er, is there much of a debate here? I think most are against the ban, with a few people for it. Seems to cross party lines and ideology. Not sure why you want to make hay over this with people who agree with you if you really want to avoid a ban...unless you'd rather have a ban and score political points from it.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 14:40:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I second Larry in his Thanks to Jon Tester. (0.00 / 0)

After all, that's why we voted him into office over that useless bag of shit Burns.  BUT:

Even the TALK ALONE will have some very, very serious repercussions come election time, and well they should.

Larry, you need to catch up to the modern reality here.  The number of single issue 2nd amendment voters is receding faster than Rusty's hairline.  That thinking is just so '90s.

The assault weapons ban was simply bad law.  It fails every test for effectiveness.  Every one.  There's a helluva lot of us 'libruls' out there who know that, accept that and will live with that.  It will not pass again (do I need to remind folks here that legislation takes 60 votes to pass the Senate call for cloture?)  Regardless of whether or not the Democrats gain more seats in the Senate (they will), too few want to stake their reputations on bad law.  That doesn't mean we need to fear the wrath of single issue voters; it simply means that our elected officials haven't the time or need to wrangle over such trivialities.

One final thing.  Rusted does himself no favors whatsoever by maintaining the Federal Rights stance.  It ignores the likely outcome of Heller, it invalidates current (GOOD) legislation passing through the Montana legislature, and it alienates more people (KILL THE GUBMINT!) than it supports.  He's like the little twerp on the sidelines screaming about how the players aren't following the rules of the game.  No one cares to listen to him anymore, save the other twerps on the sidelines.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 21:11:32 PM UTC

I hear ya. (0.00 / 0)

I guess that I was quite offended by what JC said about he and I not even being on the same side of the aisle.  Allow me an example.  I have gone round and round with the union boys here in GF regarding the coal plant. They were all for it, and I'm again' it. We've been at every meeting on opposite sides of the issue, sometimes quite angrily so, but I would NEVER, EVER say that they were not good Democrats.  They are.  And so am I.  We eat hotdogs together at the Labor Day picnic.  But first and foremost I am an environmentalist.  We Dems INVENTED the circular firing squad.  We really ARE the party of the big tent, or better yet, the big tent full of shoes!  Some fit, and others don't.  The second amendment shoe fit me just fine.

But, again, I think it's a mistake to undervalue the importance of the second amendment to people.  I don't think those folks are necessarily single issue voters as are the anti-abortion folks.  Many of the second amendment folks, myself included, view  the Constitution as inspired.  Therefore, it's  ALL important.  And must be protected.  We all like  to think that we knew what the Founders were thinking when they wrote that thing.  I think that I have a pretty good idea too.  Therefore, people should be allowed to interpret the second amendment as they see fit.  If they're right, no harm done.  If they wrong, no harm done.  But their view should be respected. And then, it takes the animosity out of the issue.  If changes are to be made, the Supremes will have the final say.  As you say, why fight over trivialities?  No need.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 22:58:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]