UPSET GUN OWNERS SET TO DUMP BUSH

Worldnetdaily ^ | April 17, 2003 | By Jon Dougherty

[dinodino]

Damn, Randall, don't ask for much, do you? That would all be fantastic, but the chances of Pres. Bush eliminating all firearms restrictions are just slightly smaller than the chances of my head jumping off my shoulders and flying around the room under its own power--it just isn't going to happen.

[RandallFlagg]

That happens to me after my 3rd shot of Tequilla....

[dinodino]

I'd love to get a candidate elected who doesn't MAKE mistakes on such fundamental decisions. That would thrill me to no end. I can understand someone who is a full throttle statist Democrat violating the Constitution, but how can a supposed Conservative Republican make "mistakes" on the same topics? It's really a sickening state of affairs.

[dinodino]

Well, he (Pres. Bush) would sure as heck regain my support and I'd donate as much as I could to his campaign. I'm sorry to say that I doubt I'll be given cause to write that check, though.

[TroutStalker]

I can just hear some of the posters here, who are criticizing you for holding Bush's feet to the fire on this issue, screaming bloody murder if Bush were to announce that he would veto any legislation restricting abortion. Then see who would be damned "single issue voters".

[Jorge]

Great, I bet President John Kerrey will be much better for gun owners right? Give me a break.

One more thread for the single issue fanatics to threaten to help elect a DemocRAT if Bush doesn't agree with them on something. WAAAAAAHHHH!

[dinodino]

Yep. You're right, Jorge--I'm a single-issue voter. My single issue is the Constitution. Candidates who crap on this document don't get my money or votes. What's your issue, or don't you have anything you are passionate about?

[Caipirabob]

And I was referring to "Borderline" voters, like the kind who turned on Al Gore in the 2000 election and voted for G.W. The issue of gun rights was pivotal for them. I don't know if you identify with this group, but if it's that important, why take offense?

Such politics have varying degrees of meaning for different people. Guns rights for some is the foundation for the perpetuation of all the freedoms we hold dear. I tend to agree with that line of thinking.

The Bill Of Rights was specifically set up as limitations to government, not the people. This continual assault on the RTBA is a major concern, as it chips away little by little at the foundation of what allows us to keep what freedom we have.

Without such we would surely fail as a nation and a people.

If it's that important of an issue, and you hold it as being that important, it's a darn good reason to do so.

[heckler]

Amen.

In 1992 many people voted for Ross Perot. Did the fact that they voted on principle make Bill Clinton easier to swallow?(gratuitous pun intended)

[bullseye1911]

Unhappy with President Bush's decision to support continuation of a controversial gun ban passed during the Clinton administration, many gun owners say they'll dump Bush in 2004 and vote for someone else if he signs new legislation extending the prohibition.

Which defines the term "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

[NMC EXP]

I bet President John Kerrey will be much better for gun owners right? Give me a break.

No, Kerrey would sign the reauthorization of the gun ban just as Bush will do.

I won't give you a break, I'll give you a chance to explain to me why an un-Constitutional gun grab by a republican is better than an un-Constitutional gun grab by a democrat. From where I stand, the effect is the same.

Further, I will guarantee you that voting for Bush a second time will confirm to the republican leadership that that the right wing of the party approves of this and other moderate if not liberal actions by Bush.

One thing you can be sure of, when you reward an action, you will get more of it.

Regards

J.R.

[dinodino]

Sorry, Bob, I mistakenly lumped you in with the folks here who are shrieking, "You'll elect Hillary!" and, "You are a one-issue voter!" I reread your post and see that you were talking about swing voters.

The posts from strict Constitutionalists are starting to get drowned out by the stuff spewing from the keyboards of the Republican Party shills.

[NMC EXP]

One more thread for the single issue fanatics to threaten to help elect a DemocRAT if Bush doesn't agree with them on something

And another response from a "party before principle" fanatic.

Regards

J.R.

[Dane]

And another response from a "party before principle" fanatic

Nope a response from a person who understands politics in modern America and doesn't wish to follow you over a cliff towards another demo Presidency.

[MissAmericanPie]

What is the point of holding onto "power" if there is no conservative power in it, but only more socialist power at the end of the day? The Republican party is trying to move far left, if their feet are not held to the fire, whose feet will you hold to the fire, Democrats?

My amazement is that anyone would vote for a no borders globalist again, no matter how well he handled the war, and still call themselves conservative, republican, or constitutionalist. Under the cloak of "Republican", Bush can inflict far more damage to our sovereignty than any democrat would be allowed to get away with and he has shown repeatedly that he will attempt to do so.

The major problem in Iraq has been delt with, we have major problems and our own brand of corruption and thugs right here at home and most collect checks as federal/state employees. We have our own Palestine South, Mexico, and we have our own France North, Canada. And we have a President that is very sympathetic, to the detriment of the US, to both of these enemies.

For some reason, it is more acceptable to me to be stabbed in the chest by my sleezy enemy, than stabbed in the back by someone wearing my uniform and flying my conservative flag. At least then Fox News would be able to educate people's thinking by being honest about the dangers we are being led into by those with a globalist, no guns, agenda.

[NMC EXP]

If you're getting that "voice in the wilderness" feeling about this issue and the responses you get from the usual suspects, keep your chin up.

There are 50,000 lurkers out there reading this stuff and some of them are learning from it.

Never compromise, never surrender.

Regards

J.R.

[The Lake City Gar]

Why am I NOT surprised this tripe is coming from WorldNetDaily?

That joke of a site has NO credibility.

Somone call a WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbulance.

[chainsaw]

Go ahead and vote for a Dem instead of Bush.

If A is anti-gun, and B is anti-gun. ??????????????

[Dane]

If you're getting that "voice in the wilderness" feeling about this issue and the responses you get from the usual suspects, keep your chin up.

You must mean the usual suspects who incessantly post that there is no difference between Bush and Hillary.

[Clean_Sweep]

Lets face the facts; the ban did almost nothing in anyway. Anyone who wants a semi-auto rifle can still buy the same models that were available before the ban. Pre-ban guns are still available and post-ban guns are just as good. Who needed a baynet anyway.

This is a fake issue designed to split the vote. Bush is cunducting an important political move taking away an issue that the Demorats want to use as a hammer. Give him some help instead of pertending this ban is important.