Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing
TooGood Reports ^ | 13 November 2003 | Lee R Shelton IV

Posted on 11/13/2003 12:45:22 PM PST by 45Auto

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 721-725 next last
To: justshutupandtakeit
Up on the discussion...I think I've pegged you pretty well in the posts to you. I notice you haven't addressed my points - and I didn't expect you to.

BTW - It is perfectly legal now to own a cannon, but why should a pesky thing like reality hamper your attempts to defend your positions?

Have you figure out yet that true conservatives won't justshutupandtakeit, Mr. Clinton?
521 posted on 11/18/2003 10:27:42 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
In order for a militia to function well it must have discipline. Thus, the Constitution specifies that it must be officered by state appointed officers and trained as Congress specified.

Your meaning is only one aspect of militia training. It could be made up of crack shots and great tacticians but,
if not under control of its officers and integrated into a command structure, it is essentially useless for many purposes.

That was the main problem Washington had with them. Militias were prone to break and run as soon as things did not go their way so the Commander of the Revolutionary forces tried to avoid them at all costs. That is why he had to train a Continental Army.
522 posted on 11/18/2003 10:28:51 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
I should clarify - you have pretty much established that not only do you not understand the Second Amendment, you have serious issues with the First as well.
523 posted on 11/18/2003 10:29:19 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Hey, I don't mind someone calling me a liar, statist, libertarian, communist or nazi and that often happens on the same thread. Just figure I am doing my job.
524 posted on 11/18/2003 10:30:44 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
My pseudonym is ironic itself and intended to provoke comment. It almost always works as you can see from the length of this thread.
525 posted on 11/18/2003 10:32:14 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Not that you know anything about totalitarianism but perhaps you should have paid more attention to the phrase "the choice is yours." Not very totalitarian now is it?
526 posted on 11/18/2003 10:34:27 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
The length of this thread has little to do with your screen name and everything to do with the assinine positions taken, and similarly assinine assertions made, by you and others who think any politician should get a pass on their AWB vote.

I noted your screen name simply because it fits with your arrogant and dangerous "with Bush or with the RATmedia" comment. Dangerous becuase such an attitude amongs our elected officials breeds totalitarian control. Dangerous also because such an attitude amongst the advisors to Bush and the R's will breed Democrat victorys.

For you to ascribe the length of this thread to your screen name reinforces my opinion (based upon both your screen name and the content of your posts) that you are simply an arrogant psuedo-intellectual. You might need to spend some introspective time on your personality.
527 posted on 11/18/2003 10:44:07 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Apparently you are under the false impression I either said cannons were illegal or should be. In actuality I merely said they are not covered under the 2d which clearly specifies "arms" not artillery. That is what started the whole cannon controversy in which my point has not been refuted.

Any point you have made has been addressed.
528 posted on 11/18/2003 10:46:18 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
In order for a militia to function well it must have discipline. Thus, the Constitution specifies that it must be officered by state appointed officers and trained as Congress specified.

You are describing the organized militia. Ths Constitution alse defines the unorganized militia. The 2nd does not draw a distinction between the two insofar as whose guns are protected.

Still you fail utterly to explain why your insistance that the "burdened by government rules" definition is the one the founders had in mind. While Schumer and Feinstein would love for you to provide conclusive evidence of this, I find comfort in the knowledge that "because jsuati says so" evidence is not too convincing past the confines of your keyboard.

529 posted on 11/18/2003 10:49:54 AM PST by MileHi (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Totalitarian control will come when too many turn away from good leadership in a vain quest for perfect leadership. Those willing to give the RATmedia free reign are the nation's deadliest enemies NOT me. I have been fighting against totalitarians for decades and actually have a clue as to what it is. This is in contrast to the hysterical pseudo-patriots hyperventilating over the latest act they don't like.

Since such people can't even get straight what is said on a simple discussion thread, I can't take them too seriously.

Bush's advisors will not breed RAT victories that could only come from short-sighted and politically immature voters which you seem to encourage.
530 posted on 11/18/2003 10:53:47 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Apparently you are under the false impression I either said cannons were illegal or should be. In actuality I merely said they are not covered under the 2d which clearly specifies "arms" not artillery. That is what started the whole cannon controversy in which my point has not been refuted.

Apparently you can't remember what you wrote.

In #118 you attempted to convey that cannons were not covered by the Second Amendment. In support of this assertion you offered evidence by stating that "Cannons were not owned by individuals during the Revolution what concoction of crap did you get that gem from?"

I merely called you on your absolute lack of knowledge of history. However, since those earlier posts I checked your page and note you claim a minor in history. Fiven this pedigree that you allege, your proffered "proof" could be simply a material misrepresentation on your part instead of arising from total ignorance of history.

I also am enjoying your attempt to evade the issue of the Constitutionality of Welfare around about #220. All that after telling NMC that he couldn't pass your constitutional test...

Maybe he could pass it because you wouldn't recognize the correct answers?

I'm afraid to keep reading through this thread - I might die from laughter.

531 posted on 11/18/2003 11:00:02 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Dan, my point throughout this thread is that those who wage "all or nothing" single-agenda political campaigns ALWAYS end up with nothing. Always.
532 posted on 11/18/2003 11:00:31 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
There is only one militia referenced within the Constitution. However, some State constitutions and other laws make it clear that EVERY able bodied male is a part of the militia. Chuckie, Feinstein and the Witch will get no help from my position on gun control or the meaning of the Second amendment.

How did you come up with the idea that I claimed or believe there is some distinction about which group of people's guns were protected under the 2d? I didn't and don't believe any such thing. It clearly says "the right of the PEOPLE...." NOT some groups of people.

I am not the one threatening to desert the the gungrabbers' greatest enemy over a squabble over AW bans. Those are the people who will play into their hands, not I.
533 posted on 11/18/2003 11:02:11 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin; 45Auto
Lets see, according to your profile you left the Democrat Party ten years ago over RKBA. Now, you're going to leave the GOP over the same issue. Who the hell needs, or wants, you?

Bush does if 537 more voters follow 45Auto's lead.

That means you need him and want him; you ought to be a little nicer to him, don'tcha think?

534 posted on 11/18/2003 11:05:12 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
If President Bush re-authorizes the AW ban, he might as well BE a Democrat. Hell, he might as well be a Clinton (he sure as heck won't be a Zell Miller!). He's had enough breaks like the idiot Education Act with Teddy "the Swimmer" Kennedy, steel tarrifs and drug benefits for wizened citizens (the richest segment of the population!).
I'm hopin' that he's leaning on Republican Congresscritters to keep that bill away from his desk, while makin' cooin' noises to the soccer moms... That way he gets to have his cake and eat it, too.
535 posted on 11/18/2003 11:09:24 AM PST by Little Ray (When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Nah, I'm sure your constitution can take it.

I clarified that comment by acknowledging the fact that privately owned ships were armed with cannons. It is still true that individuals rarely, if ever, owned cannons for use on land. Those were almost entirely the possession of militias and armies and are not "arms" as specified in the Second amendment. ARMS were carried. Cannons cannot be carried unless you are Paul Bunyan.

I didn't evade anything about Welfare merely mentioned the Court rulings wrt the 14th amendment preventing States from restricting its dispersal. For a lawyer you seem to have a singular inability to separate a comment from a desire. Just because I say something happened or was the case does not mean that I am glad it was so or wished it would be so.

Any information about the private ownership of cannons during the Revolutionary period (other than on ships) will be welcomed.
536 posted on 11/18/2003 11:10:56 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
" Good point."

Thanks, though it escapes the understanding of many here.

537 posted on 11/18/2003 11:11:16 AM PST by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
"Actually that point is agreeing with you."

That's the way I took it, though I may not have expressed it well. We usually do agree.

538 posted on 11/18/2003 11:14:04 AM PST by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
How did you come up with the idea that I claimed or believe there is some distinction about which group of people's guns were protected under the 2d?

Because you said "In order for a militia to function well it must have discipline. Thus, the Constitution specifies that it must be officered by state appointed officers and trained as Congress specified. That implies that the militia consists solely of members of some formal militay organization, the Shumer/Feinstein/9th Circus/the-national-guard-is-the-militia view. Your "burdened by govornment rules" definition of "regulated" would fit this view.

539 posted on 11/18/2003 11:14:50 AM PST by MileHi (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Bush's position on the AWR ban was clear before the 2000 election. Most didn't vote for him, if their principles are pristine, in the first place. There's nothing to lose.

If the bill to re-authorize the ban arrives at Bush's desk, he's going to sign it. Why screw around with these threats, just announce he doesn't have your vote?

So ... what is the plausible alternative? Democrats? Third Party? Sitting out the elections? The first isn't likely, the second option needs a severe jumpstart with the election in less than twelve months, and the third option warrants no respect or admiration.

The energy should be to thwart the initiative in Congress, before it lands on the President's desk. Throwing Bush overboard for an action he has signalled he WILL take is silly. Don't board his ship in the first place. But, don't delude yourselves that you will have any positive influence attaining other Conserviative priorities that only George W. Bush and a GOP majority Congress can codify into law.

540 posted on 11/18/2003 11:15:14 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 721-725 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson