Posted on 11/13/2003 12:45:22 PM PST by 45Auto
Bears repeating.
I'm speaking of what will happen if Bush signs the AW ban.
As for Engler, he dealt with a Rat house from 91-94 and 96-98, as well as a media that hated his guts. He was very conservative fiscally and conservative on social issues as well(outside the death penalty which he opposed), especially on life issues. He signed CCW as well(as did Bush).
Carl Lenin is an aberration. He's been here for 25 years. Debbie Stabusall won because Spence ran a weak campaign and was left wing on immigration issues, and a moderate on other issues. Conservatives were lukewarm to him at best as well.
The last conservative to lose was Posthumus, which was expected to be a blowout. We got two conservative through anyway statewide. Mike Cox and Terri Land.
As for the areas I referenced, those are NOT republican areas.
Macomb - Swings, socially conservative, populist.
St Clair - Marginally GOP at best. Populist.
the UP North Michigan - Leans Dem, socially conservative, populist
Shiawasse - Elected dems for 20 years. Starting to shift. Social Conservative, populist
Eaton - Went for Tabor(Most right wing state rep) and Granholm.
Monroe - Swings, socially conservative and populist.
So banning certain types of semi-auto rifles is just "one minor aspect of gun ownership"? Where will you draw the line? Lunatic fringe, huh? Sounds like a democrat talking point to me.
"Threatening to commit political suicide is not a conservative position."
I've seen you use that same line while arguing against other conservative positions.
It is juvenile, immature, shortsighted and indicative of those who are not true conservatives merely poseurs ready to leave the field to the enemy at the first displeasure crying "Wah, wah I'm going to take my ball and go home."
So those like yourself who argue in support of the liberal democrat position are the true conservatives? Now I get it.
"Join the enemy if you haven't already."
You ever hear of a saying which goes: "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? If you had ever served in our country's armed forces it might be familiar. Somehow it doesn't suprise me that to you it is a foreign concept.
You have also been trying to make the point that it (The 2nd Amendment) doesn't apply to infantry rifles.
Take a good look folks....If I didn't know better I could swear that Chuck Schumer wrote that crap. Does anyone actually think this guy has a clue what the 2nd Amendment is about?
You think? Maybe your right, after all, this continued invasion of millions has only been going on now for 20 plus years.
Better remain calm, take our time and think about this.
LOL! Thanks for the belly laugh.....
Show us where in the Constitution it says that the goverment must provide welfare benefits to those persons entering our country illegally. Let's see...you're in favor of banning guns, pro-welfare and pro-illegal immigration. Tell me again why you think you're a conservative?
The defense of Freedom is the only valid justification for war. All else is simply a quest for domination and the imposition of a particular minorities will on the rest. Freedom is a gift extended to others. It's a condition that exists when folks restrain themselves from micromanaging what are properly the affairs of others and respect their property and economic efforts. Freedom is not a set of privileges, that is continuosly diminished as time and "advancement" procede, or necessitate.
The 2nd Amend. is not limited to self defense, or sport. It is about the right to resist the armies of tyrants that desire to impose their will. Slavery and serfdom have been abolished, it will not return to this land w/o a fight.
"It is interesting to note the fanaticism it has generated particularly when the chance of the House extending it is zero. It won't even be brought up for a vote but that has not stopped the foaming at the mouth, blustering and threatening.
The fanaticism is as old as the United States itself. That's manifest in the Bill of Rights itself and throughout US history. There are those that would like to bury the evidence of it and that's the only reason you see folks talking about it now. You wouldn't hear anything about it if there was no threat to the right and Freedom itself. There is though and it's very evident.
"True conservatives are circling the wagons around the President to defend him from the RATmedia attacks rather than posturing and making empty and idiotic threats."
The president is not as important as Freedom. You'll not get the wagons in a circle if you tic off and attack the drivers, or betray some of them to the enemy, because they are expendable.
" You can shoot someone in most cases once but more than that is not allowed."
LOL!
Well said.
Looking at the last 20 presidential elections as a basis of comparison, it is very unlikely that the President will be reelected by as large of a margin as you are mocking. It is in the best interest of all Republicans to do everything that we can to make sure that a similarly large margin of conservative voters isn't alienated in this next presidential election as there was in the last California gubernatorial election. No one owes their vote to your candidate, and the tone you and others have shown by publically belittling the principle-over-party-affiliation conservatives here can do far more to undermine the President's reelection than having them stay home ever could. Regardless of your intent, your comments here are hurting the President's cause.
Thoughts ~ :)
No, I don't think the 3rd party twilight-zone, fantasy-lander's hate GWB with as much vitrol as the lunatic left does.
"Slippery slope" is one way to think of it, but I prefer "thin end of the wedge". As it currently exists, the Assault Weapons Ban is more aggravation than anything else - it merely forces the gun manufacturers to make cosmetic changes and little else. The ban on manufacture of "high capacity" (actually standard-capacity) magazines is the worst part.
The law need not be repealed; it dies automatically by virtue of a sunset provision. In order to continue past the sunset date, a bill must be passed which would re-authorize the '94 law... but here comes the wedge, being driven deeper: with the new bill, additional provisions can be added, making the ban bigger.
The original AW Ban has done absolutely nothing to reduce crime, and in fact has piled on the technicalities to the point where a gun purchaser is more likely to be in violation of the law (example: some muzzle brakes received the okey-dokey from BATF, which later took another look and decided that no, it really suppressed the muzzle flash too much, so it was actually a flash hider, and therefore illegal. Meanwhile, a few thousand of the things had been sold).
If only EVERY ineffective law on the books could sunset. This is indeed a rarity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.