Well, if the righties defend guns and oppose PA and lefties oppose PA and oppose guns, then who was arguing for PA? I don't remember where the thread(s) is right now, but I could have sworn they were righties that were arguing for PA.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Who cares whether they were "unhappy" or not? They are the political base of the Administration that legislated the Patriot Act. They did it.

According to the NRA, in 2000 and in 2004 federal elections, a significant majority of gun-owners who voted, voted Bush.

Both sides of the political spectrum voted for the patriot act. In the Senate, Feingold(D-WI) voted against and Landrieu(D-LA) did not vote. The House numbers are proving more difficult to find.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Thats not entirely true.

Congress legislated the USA PATRIOT act. The President signed it into law.

That would mean, by your logic, the people responsible are those who voted for their respective Congressmen and Senators. That someone voted for Bush is inconsequential.

Additionally, i believe the USA PATRIOT act passed with enough of a margin that a veto could have been overridden.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

That is a purely semantic argument that tries to dodge.

The legislation was specifically 'administration' created/driven. It didn't originate in Congress. Congress only gave permission to the President's chosen policy instrument here.

This particular piece of policy originates with the Executive.

Besides which, even if I grant your semantic argument, my argument still stands - a majority of gun-owners voted Republican congressionally as well - and therefore it is the gun-owner's representatives that passed the Patriot Act.

Either way, it is the gun-owners who were strong electoral supporters of Bush and were strong electoral supporters of a Republican Congress. And between President Bush and the Republican Congress, you get the Patriot Act.

Indeed, was not Ashcroft once considered a 'darling' of conservatives?

Patriot Act is a product of US political conservativism. I don't see how anyone can reasonably dodge that statement, though they certainly may not like it. The Patriot act sure hasn't come from the left - that's for certain.

Bottom line is that the GWBush administration is as intrusive and anti-liberty as they are spendthrifts. The facts speak for themselves here.

No it isnt semantics, its real life. The President may propose any legislation he wants, but Congress carries the responsibility of creating it and voting upon it.

If Congress (and it was a bi-partisan vote incidentally) doesnt want it, they can vote it down. In fact, it is their DUTY to reject legislation which they know is wrong. In this case, they chose to pass a bill which most of them had not even read! Sorry - but Congress gets the blame for that.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Okay. I meant that an assault rifle was usually defined as a rifle capable of automatic fire.

Unfortunately that isnt the case. What is frequently defined as an "assault rifle" is nothing more than a semi-automatic which looks like the full-auto variant. Kinda like calling a Civic a race car just because it has some stickers and a fart pipe.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

The definition of assualt weapon has nothing to do with it's looks.

The Assualt Weapon Ban of 1994 (or, rather, Title XI, subtitle A, of Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) defines Assault Rifles as:

The only restriction on the appearance of guns is:

It's not just based on looks

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Republican Congress.

Gun-owners majority vote Republican. Ergo, my argument stands. It is the politics of the gun-owners that has created the Patriot Act.

Like I said above, just because you don't like this fact (which I'm sure you don't), doesn't make it untrue. You can't blame the fucking Patriot Act on anyone except the Republican Party (whom you as a gun-owner, likely voted for).

Since I am opposed to guns, I am late getting into this thread, but I'm bored so:::

First a question. Are you so unsure of your government that you have to arm yourself against it??? "Course it IS true that many Bush-bashers are beginning to feel that way.

Actually yes it is. Not a single one of those conditions affects the function of the gun in any substantial way. Hate to break it to you, but on a firearm, everything in the AWB is analagous to body skirting on a street car

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

With Bush in office, I am more than that much unsure of it.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

1. Folding or telescopic stock:
This would make it much easier to conceal/inconspicuously transport the weapon, this is a legitmate concern. A folding stock, for instance, would make it much easier for a kid to sneak this rifle into a school. This would affect the manner in which the rifle could be used. It's not just appearance.

2. Pistol Grip:
Pistol grips were designed to make the weapon easier to fire at a rapid rate. Not to mention it makes it easier to "spray fire" the weapon. This affects the functionality of the weapon, not just the cosmetics.

3. A bayonet mount:
Why would you want to mount a bayonet on your rifle anyway? I'm pretty sure you're not going to go target practicing with your bayonet, and I would love to see some one hunt with a bayonet. Adding a bayonet to your rifle makes it more dangerous, this affects the functionality of the weapon, not just the cosmetics.

4. Flash suppressor:
This would make it much easier to use the rifle in a crime and go unnoticed. This affects the functionalit, not just the cosmetics.

5. Grenade Launcher:
This one is pretty obvious.

Whether your agree with the reasoning or not is an entirely different issue. However, the reasons behind the ban are not cosmetic. There is logic behind the banned features.

I realize that you think that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot; however, this is not a black and white issue, and there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Now that alkl who visit this thread knows what an assault weapon looks like and may I say, I will sleep better for this knowledge. May we move on?

__________________
http://vladtheagitator.blogsource.com

Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it. Albert Einstein

We Americans have NO commission from God to police the world. Pres. Benjamin Harrison

Slower Minds --Keep Right

Politics is war without bloodshed; war is politics with bloodshed