Posted on 07/11/2002 3:18:44 AM PDT by from occupied ga
By the way, who's King George the Second?
My nickname for GWB II - current president of the US. Since he acts more like a monarch (we think that the pilots should not be armed and we won't allow them to be armed) than an elected representative I decided that the royal nickname was appropriate.
BTW what country do you live in? I just plunked 50% down on a full auto Uzi :-)
I'm curious why you call President Bush a monarch? He could get voted out in 2004 is this not true? Monarchs wouldn't allow such a thing. It also makes me want to ask who your King George the First is? George Washington? I remember reading that at first Washington was offered the title of King of the USA but he rejected it- said it defeated the purpose of the Revolution. If Washington rejected a monarchy, why tag him with the "King" handle?
Bull. The tiny-but-shrill antigun lobby didn't spend millions on ads to try to defeat Bush because they thought he was antigun.
Since his inauguration, Bush has driven the antigun lobby - and the Eurocommies - nuts with his support of gun rights. From his nomination of John Ashcroft (and getting him confirmed) to his standing up to the Eurocommies' demands for global gun control, it's obvious who's not their man!
Finally, trying to replicate Brit-style confiscation here is now impractical. Only reason why it was practical in Britain was that almost all guns there were registered - and few had them anyway. Here, a high share of the public has guns - and many share my attitude that "my only 'dependent' eats Purina!" Many of us at any given time have also just been told that we are terminally ill.
GUN REVIEWS free from ad-money bias - emphasizing woman-friendliness of tested guns!
As I said before it's his imperious attitude toward the peasants' Second Amendment rights.
He could get voted out in 2004 is this not true? Monarchs wouldn't allow such a thing.
True, but I believe I answered this already.
It also makes me want to ask who your King George the First is?
GWB, "read my lips" the first - president of the USA just prior to Slick WIllie Klinton who on his own signed an executive order to ban the import of various guns, magazines, and ammunition. This was not done through the representative law making system, but as an unconstitutional executive decision. Executive branch is charged with enforcing laws in the US - not making them.
Interesting. I didn't know Bush the present was that powerful- maybe I should go out and join the Democratic Party and oppose him.
BTW, what is "occupied ga"? At first I thought you were talking about Georgia, but your English is very good. You wouldn't be talking about the United States Georgia would you? But look, Cynthia McKinney is bound to be voted out of office and Georgia won't be occupied by socialists any more and then you will have to explain your name in the future. I was born and reared in Griffin btw.
We like Bush (King George II?) a LOT here in Great Britain. He is a strong leader and it is no wonder why the lefties dislike him so much. I suppose you're right- he has it within his authority to pass a constitutional ammendment and a law (written in stone too) that airline pilots will be armed and has not done so. It's a pity the Americans, when they thought up the Constitution, didn't devise a system of checks and balances where the Congress could make a law when the need arose-- then you wouldn't be so mad at the President, then the Congress would share at least some of the blame. But since you don't have a system like that- it must be ALL Dubya's fault and you are right to call him names.
I could say the same for your drivel
The tiny-but-shrill antigun lobby didn't spend millions on ads to try to defeat Bush because they thought he was antigun.
No they thought that Gore would be more favorable to their schemes. They didn't think that GWB would wholsale restore our rights.
Since his inauguration, Bush has driven the antigun lobby - and the Eurocommies - nuts with his support of gun rights.
Just what has he actually done?
From his nomination of John Ashcroft (and getting him confirmed)
Just how does this do anything to help gun owners' rights? The ONLY thing that Ashcroft has done that could even vaguely be construed as pro-gun was to send a memo that the 2nd Amend was individual. Talk is cheap. neither Bush nor any of his appointees have done a single solitary substantive pro-gun thing. Magaw imperiously annnounced that there would be no arming of the pilots. (Killing everyone on board with a sidewinder is OK, but arming the pilots is not). Don't think that lap dogs like Magaw do anything that isn't approved from the top.
If GWB II is so pro-gun (and he's not) he could simply rescind the executive orders blocking imports signed by his daddy, King George I, and the despicable Klinton. He hasn't and he won't. He is slightly to the right of the Democrats, but not much, and is certaintly no real conservative.
Brit style confiscation
I agree that it is impractical now, but in the future when the so-called "instant background check" has registered 99% of all of the gun owners, then the government will test it. Remember what they did in New York City - registered them in 1976 with the promise that they would never be confiscated, and then 20 years later confiscated them. Politicians' promises aren't worth the contents of a spitoon. When GWB DOES something pro gun, then I'll be happy to change my judgement, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I don't know about the supremes, but the citizens and Congress is calling for armed pilots. Bill passed out of the house yesterday overwhelminginly in favor of arming the pilots.
Interesting. I didn't know Bush the present was that powerful- .
He's not supposed to be, but Congress has been abdicating it's authority to the president for decades
BTW, what is "occupied ga"? At first I thought you were talking about Georgia, but your English is very good. You wouldn't be talking about the United States Georgia would you?
Yep, Georgia in the USA - occupied by yankees, liberals and home grown scalawags
But look, Cynthia McKinney is bound to be voted out of office and Georgia won't be occupied by socialists any more
Oh would that it were true, but I suspect that McKinney won't be voted out of office. She is black, and her supporters are mostly black, ad that's the main reason that they vote for her. Also her supporters include the terminally envious, and Mckinney is perpetually voting to stick it to the high achievers, but this is another topic and I'm rambling
We like Bush (King George II?) a LOT here in Great Britain. He is a strong leader and it is no wonder why the lefties dislike him so much.
Actually it is a wonder why the lefties dislike him. He has been following a redistributionist policy that would have made Ralph Nader proud.
...written in stone too) that airline pilots will be armed and has not done so.
He through his transportation agency has blocked the arming of the pilots administratively - convenient fiction that when some bureaucrat wants to make a law they just say that the authority was granted under Congress under existing laws
It's a pity the Americans, when they thought up the Constitution, didn't devise a system of checks and balances where the Congress could make a law when the need arose-- then you wouldn't be so mad at the President, then the Congress would share at least some of the blame. But since you don't have a system like that- it must be ALL Dubya's fault and you are right to call him names.
My, sarcasm. The constitution is only valid to the extent that it is followed. If the government doesn't follow the constitution, then there are no checks and vbalances, and believe me they don't follow the constitution.
Regarding McKinney- I thought her major competition was also a black woman- boy was I misinformed! If her competition were a black woman as I had thought- the black voters wouldn't know who to vote for would they, seeings how they don't care about America and only vote for skin color.
Yankees huh? So my home state is occupied by the 'evil Yankees' is it? You can't leave. You can't vote. You can't own a gun or property there in the Heart of Dixie? You're occupied by dem evil Yankees? My grandfather- in the political spectrum- would probably have made you look to the left of Lenin and he didn't even go on such. It hasn't been that long since I left- how bad could it have gotten? And is Georgia the only State occupied by dem Yankees and yonder scalawags or is there more?
End note. You know, when I was a boy growing up in "UnOccupied Georgia" we didn't like people being disrespectful of the President. Since you obviously don't share in that tradition, I will point out to you that the only reason we are having this discussion is because you were and I would also point out that Dubya is probably the only thing standing between your freedoms as you enjoy them and total subjugation to the rule of the collective- which is what the lefties/liberals/democrats/socialists want. You're either with 'em or against 'em- sho' nuff.
"In the future" doesn't exist. As things are now, nobody knows from instant background checks how many guns have been resold a year later - off-paper. And - with the gun market so glutted with used guns that manufacturers are having a hard time selling new ones - things are likely to stay that way for your lifetime and mine. That's the difference between "registration" and "instant check" - and why we aren't NYC. It's also why the antigun lobby demands "registration."
You ask what Bush has done. He told the Eurocommies pushing UN global gun control to forget it at that UN conference.
And his mere presence has set back the antigun lobby a century. The Democreeps - even Klinton - now admit publicly that it was the gun issue that cost Algore the election. The antigun Washington ComPost not only says few politicians even want to push gun control as a result of the 2000 elections - but that the antigun lobby is in financial collapse.
Don't be defeatist and falsely analogize us to Britain. Britain is a tiny island of Eurocommies - while Red Nation is a huge contiguous area of (usually) armed people who (overwhelmingly) are social conservatives. Britain's population is so small compared to Red Nation's to make police-state fascism practical - especially being that Brits effectively disarmed a couple generations ago.
"In the future" doesn't exist.
What nonsense. In 1976, 1996 didn't exist, but nevertheless guns registered in 1976 were confiscated by the government of NYC in 1996. If one were to follow your "logic" to its obvious conclusion, then it would be OK to step off a tall building now because the future in which you make a big red splash on the pavement doesn't exist. You can do this if you want, but I think that I'll continue to believe in the future.
As things are now, nobody knows from instant background checks how many guns have been resold a year later - off-paper.
True, but utterly irrelevant. They will go after to ones who are registered via the instant background check. This will get most of the guns. And BTW haven't you heard the media drumbeat to "close the gunshow loophole?" This will have the effect of registering private sales. The government and the anti-gunners don't give a rat's ass about who buys guns as long as they have that confiscation "instant background check" list.
And - with the gun market so glutted with used guns that manufacturers are having a hard time selling new ones - things are likely to stay that way for your lifetime and mine.
I'm glad that you are so confidant and can predict the future that according to you "doesn't exist."
You ask what Bush has done. He told the Eurocommies pushing UN global gun control to forget it at that UN conference.
Whoopie do. More talk - and talk is cheap. His daddy held firm against the antigun media for what, 11 days, before banning semiauto imports via an unconstitutional executive order. I wonder how long before King G. II will go along on this like he's gone alone on just about about every other liberal initiative. Like I said before. Let the boy do something for the 2nd A. crowd beside talk and then I will agree with you.
And his mere presence has set back the antigun lobby a century.
Do you have the faintest idea of what you're saying? Obviously not. To set gun control back a century you would have to have the same gun control laws that the US had in 1902. As far as I know the only gun control laws that existed in 1902 were a number of state statutes prohibiting blacks from owning handguns. I believe that NY's infamous Sullivan law was passed around this time (plus or minus a few years) to prohibit immigrants from owning the means of self defense. NYC has always been a leader in victim disarmement and police state mentality. So if King George II's mere presence put gun control back a century, I should be able to legally buy a full auto weapon without regestering it. I can't. I should be able to legally buy a medium or large caliber weapon without regestering it and its ammunition as "destructive devices." I can't. I should be able to buy large capacity handgun magazines legally without being a member of the police. I can't. I should be able to buy any of the excellent small arms offered by rosenburo. I can't. Just to list a few of the contracdictions to you ridiculous statement.
The Democreeps - even Klinton - now admit publicly that it was the gun issue that cost Algore the election.
So what. Slick Willie and the democreeps admitted that it was the vile Brady (may that despicable hag rot in hell forever) law that put the Republicans in control of Kongress in 1994 for the first time in 50 years. I didn't see anything but talk then - the gun control initiatives kept coming then and they're still coming now.
The antigun Washington ComPost not only says few politicians even want to push gun control as a result of the 2000 elections
Disinformation designed to lull the easily gulled into a sense of false security. I don't believe the profesional liars who write government propaganda for the Post for one minute and no one whose seen this crap happen before and still isn't senile should either.
- but that the antigun lobby is in financial collapse.
The pro gun lobby isn't doing especially well either. Conservative fund raising is far down too, because of the false idea that we now have a conservative in the white house.
Don't be defeatist
Try realist
and falsely analogize us to Britain. Britain is a tiny island of Eurocommies - while Red Nation is a huge contiguous area of (usually) armed people who (overwhelmingly) are social conservatives.
Yes the red area is so ovewhelingly socially conservative that the only reason that Owlwhore lost the election is that communist Ralph Nader siphoned off the really extreme left wing vote. < /sarcasm> Republicans should thank Nader. He gave them the presidency.
Britain's population is so small compared to Red Nation's to make police-state fascism practical -
Again irrelevant. The USSR wasn't small, but they had a very effective police state. China is a lot large than the US and they have a pretty effective police state too. (Damn! I've just proved what men have contended forever - Size is irrelevant!)
especially being that Brits effectively disarmed a couple generations ago.
Again true but irrelevant. The statists take the long view. If they can't enslave you they'll settle for enslaving your children or grandchildren.
Oh and don't get the idea that I'm picking on you personally. I'm not. I think that we're both on the same side, but many battles and wars have been lost by underestimating the enemy, and that is what you're doing. The anti-gunners are the enemy. They will not stop until we are totally enslaved, we are dead, or they are dead.
I agree, but I failed to do that several years ago, and I still can't decide if I screwed up or not. In retrospect (hindsight is always 20/20) I did the right thing and no shots were fired, but tactically I could have gotten killed.
I was going to work very early in those days (as in 5ish) and I noticed a van that appeared to be following me. I made a few turns (on the way to work) and the van made them too. I speeded up and the van kept up with me. I was driving a car that would have had a hard time outrunning a guy in a walker, so I pulled into a parking lot at speed stopped at the darkest part, jumped out of the car with my trusty weapon, got behind the engine part of my car and aimed my firearm across the hood at the van which had followed me into the parking lot. Three black guys got out and started toward me. Rather than shooting them and then emptying the rest of the magazine into the driver's area of the van I yelled "can I help you" There were many shouts of "He's got a gun, it's cool man" and other stuff I don't remember. They ran back to the van (which btw they'd manage to lose the license plate from) and took off with squealing of tires. Alls well that ends well (other than the fact that my hear rate didn't drop down to normal for many hours), but if they'd been determined I would have been in deep brown stuff, so I still can't decide if I did the right thing.
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.