Banning 'assault weapons' to protect gun rights?

[ericire12]

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d13-Accepting-assault-weapons-bans-to-protect-gun-rights

     Congressman Spencer Bachus

That's what Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) tells us may be necessary.

    He did not give the response some small city officials were hoping for when they asked if he would oppose all gun bans.

    Instead, he said, it may be necessary to ban some assault weapons to keep hunting rifles and guns from being outlawed.

Such an answer may have earned Rep. Bachus good grades in the Neville Chamberlain School of Gun Rights Advocacy, but that school of thought has been discredited since--oh, about 1939 or so.

First, under what Constitutionally enumerated power could the federal government outlaw "hunting rifles and guns"?  Even setting aside the Second Amendment's shall not be infringed--what part of the Constitution empowers the government to implement such a law?  Granted, the government hasn't let such trivial niceties as the Constitution stop it from doing what it wants, but that doesn't mean that we should meekly accept such behavior, and try to forestall it through the dubious strategy of appeasement.

Second, appeasement does not work.  Support for citizen disarmament is support for tyranny, and submitting to tyrants simply emboldens them to engage in further usurpations.

Rep. Bachus did little to redeem himself as a defender of the Second Amendment with his next statement:

    He said he is discouraging those who ask him whether they should arm themselves in preparation for economic or government trouble ahead. "I think peaceful, nonviolent protest is the way to go," he said.

Tell me, Congressman, how well you think "peaceful, nonviolent protest" would work against an out-of-control government, or in protecting one's home from feral mobs in the event of an economic collapse.  How well has such protest ever worked to thwart an out-of-control government?  I am not claiming that such dire conditions are imminent, but the Second Amendment constitutes 10% of the Bill of Rights for a purpose, and that purpose has nothing to do with hunting.

    He said he also believes it is a threat that the criminals will begin out-gunning the police officers. He said everyone should also be aware of the role weapons are playing in the recent multiple shooting tragedies around the country.

I suppose Rep. Bachus would like the criminals--who wouldn't obey a ban anyway--to out-gun everyone.  Besides, police have access to more firepower than private citizens can legally purchase in gun shops and at gun shows, and finally,  the people's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not predicated on police maintaining the ability to outgun us.

Gun rights are non-negotiable, and even if they were negotiable, Rep. Bachus is clearly not the one whom those who care about gun rights should want to have at the bargaining table.

Washington, D.C. Office
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202 225-4921 phone
202 225-2082 fax

[Hazcat]

Sigh....yet another RINO.

Are there ANY conservative, constitution following Rs left (I KNOW the answer for Ds)?

[Timothy]

Sigh....yet another RINO.

Are there ANY conservative, constitution following Rs left (I KNOW the answer for Ds)?

The Governor of Texas..

[alfsauve]

Instead, he said, it may be necessary to ban some assault weapons to keep hunting rifles and guns from being outlawed.

This is precisely how rights are trampled on everyday.

It is my observation that many in the gun community think this very way.   It, I believe, accounts for many of the laws we now have on the books starting with the 1968 GCA and including the past PIF ban.   

[Rastus]

This is precisely how rights are trampled on everyday.............

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British prime-minister (1759-1806)

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

Chip, Chip, Chippin away ... 

A termite does not attack your house with a chainsaw.  A termite nibbles away on a 2x6 one fiber at a time.  Sacrificing one style of gun (an assault weapon is nothing more than a hunting gun with different furniture) for another is like sitting on the front porch and handing the termites the studs out of your walls one by one 

The word sacrifice is key.  The Aztecs didn't build permanent temples and alters because they planned on  stopping after the first blood letting.  If we sacrifice one gun, they will be back, and we will gladly give them more.  One by one we will hand everything over in the name of common sense 

[runstowin]

"I think peaceful, nonviolent protest is the way to go," he said.

 I think, peaceful, nonviolent removal from office is the way to go, for the good representative.

[tombogan03884]

"I think peaceful, nonviolent protest is the way to go," he said.

I think, peaceful, nonviolent removal from office is the way to go, for the good representative.

And if that doesn't work there is still the option of noisy violent removal from office. Which is the REAL reason they keep chipping away.

[tt11758]

Sigh....yet another RINO.

Are there ANY conservative, constitution following Rs left (I KNOW the answer for Ds)?

I'm still here.  Sadly not an elected official, however.  tt11758 (CR) (Conservative Republican)

[tt11758]

How about if we ban POLITICIANS to protect our gun rights?