Skip to comments.
As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban
Toogood Reports ^
| April 15, 2003
| By Chuck Baldwin
Posted on 04/14/2003 7:45:39 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Edited on 04/17/2003 6:40:21 AM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180, 1,181-1,200 ... 1,621-1,638 next last
To: diamond6
Nothing was deleted, or is this another one of your "Depends on the meaning of is" things.
1,161
posted on
04/17/2003 1:51:40 PM PDT
by
Dan from Michigan
("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
To: brownie
And recall the statment that "Extremism in the pursuit of Liberty is NO VICE and Moderation in the pursuit of Justice is NO VIRTUE?" Attributed to Barry Goldwater... It's true. Were it not for EXTREMISTS, you would not have ONE SINGLE RIGHT left today. Incrementalism would have eaten them alive. Just as, without the Extremists, Slavery would not have ended in 1862 or thereabouts. You NEED extremists in order to just hold on to what you HAVE, let alone enjoy the whole range of liberty intended by the Founders. Some of us tend to make you uncomfortable... which is understandable... people who don't have the stones to stand up for what they believe in are rather uncomfortable around those who do... I guess it's guilt that you are getting a FREE RIDE on the backs of those who care enough about freedom to actually get into the battle and DO something about it. So enjoy your guilt.
1,162
posted on
04/17/2003 1:57:30 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
To: brownie
Well, as to the reading comprehension and to who actually read the newspapers at the time, I have history and facts on my side No, you don't. The literacy rate in New England was over 90%, and well over 50% even in the worst areas. The protestant communities considered literacy necessary; since without it their children would be unable to read the Bible.
Let's face it, only landowners originally had the vote
This is not true. Qualifications for voting were set by the state. Some had restrictions on owning land, but not all. There have never been any federal requirements under the Constitution that voters own land.
You can dispute it, but you are wrong, and I advise you to read some history books
You need to read some better ones, because the source of your "history" is horribly misinformed.
You REPEATEDLY called W a sinner if he signs the AWB. Last I looked, it was G-d's domain to make that call
W is a sinner whether he signs the AWB or not; for all have sinned. But dcwusmc is correct to label that particular act as a sin, and a particularly heinous one. The Bible is very clear on the fact that oath-breaking is a sin, and it is self-evident to anyone with even the most basic moral compass that the AWB is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, and therefore support of that act is a violation of an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution.
To: k2blader
But would you be able to suggest a sinless man for whom to vote? My standards are not even remotely so high. I only demand one who does not commit the worst of sins; violation of the highest law of the land and his oath of office to protect it. The Constitution certainly isn't a minefield; it just isn't that difficult to comply with it.
To: Technogeeb
Well, I believe all sins are equal, so we differ there too.
However, now that I understand a little better where you're coming from, I respect your position. And I support your right to vote for or against whomever you'd like.
FRegards,
k2
1,165
posted on
04/17/2003 2:08:13 PM PDT
by
k2blader
(Pity people paralyzed in paradigms of political perfection.)
To: diamond6
Hey, it shouldn't take you this long to review my post and tell me what it was that I "deleted" from the Constitution.
1,166
posted on
04/17/2003 2:11:22 PM PDT
by
kevao
To: kevao
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer! I would suggest that purple is NOT a good color for anyone!
1,167
posted on
04/17/2003 2:16:53 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
To: k2blader
My opinion is that it looks like a whole lot of people are blowing a piece of leftist anti-Bush propaganda (published, by the socialist/marxist Washington Post, no less) all out of proportion. Looks like a whole lot of anti-Republicans are gleefully jumping onto the Washington Post's leftist Bush bashing bandwagon. My advice to those who are so happy to bash Bush and the Republicans ought to be very careful who they go to bed with. Destroy the momentum currently building for one of the very rare conservative led governments in all of U.S. history and they're liable to wake up with a real gun-grabbing socialist whore, ahem, as in Hillary Clinton, in the White House.
No wonder conservatives can't make any real headway in government. As soon as the momentum starts building, out come the hand-wringing doom and gloom naysayers, for whom no conservative is good enough, to smear and destroy any and all progress made todate by the Republicans, and by doing so, reinstalling the leftist liberals to their socialist government command posts.
And the downward spiral to socialist hell spins on.
Time to break the cycle by not surrendering to the left or to the well-meaning, but misguided right-wing naysayers. Continue the Republican conservative revolution. Dump the RATS!
BTW, it's a real laugher when right-wingers start allying themselves with known leftists (International Answer, for example) and then have the audacity to accuse conservative FReepers of being "statists." Many of these same "right-wing conservatives" (probably mostly Buchanites or self-labeled so-called "paleocons") have openly allied themselves with the marxists, communists, anarchists, and other anti-war Hollywood type leftists against Bush, against defending America, against defending freedom, and against Republicanism in general. FReepers are statists for backing Bush? Yeah, right. By that same logic, that would make Buchanan and his paleocon followers marxists, or in the very least, useful idiots, for supporting the Washington Post and the real unAmerican, freedom hating Hollywood anti-war gun-grabbing left, et al.
"We have met the enemy and he are us." The paleocons are fond of using this Pogoism as applied to mainstream conservatives, but, in many cases, I'd say the finger points right back at them. The anti-Republican conservatives seem to be the enemy of sustained conservative government.
I'm a liberty minded individual who backs the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 100%, but there is no way that I'm going to dump Bush or dump the Republican majority. Not now. Not ever. The momentum is building and will continue to build. If we want to remove liberalism and socialism from our government and restore constitutional limits, etc., then, IMHO, we cannot possibly allow the Democrats to regain control. Reelecting president Bush, and gaining larger majorities in the House, the Senate, and the Judiciary and also in state and local governments is a must if we are ever to retake America and our Liberty. This is my goal for the coming election cycle and beyond.
Naysayers be damned. Full speed ahead!
1,168
posted on
04/17/2003 2:29:44 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(FReepers are the GReatest!!)
To: Jim Robinson; FSPress
Thank you, Jim, and agreed!!! FSP, just for your info ping.
1,169
posted on
04/17/2003 2:38:45 PM PDT
by
k2blader
(Pity people paralyzed in paradigms of political perfection.)
To: Jim Robinson
THANK YOU, JIM! NOW WE KNOW WHERE YOU REALLY STAND. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. AS FOR ME, I'M GETTING BORED WITH THIS SUBJECT. GOOD NIGHT NOW!
1,170
posted on
04/17/2003 2:41:27 PM PDT
by
diamond6
("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
To: diamond6
Indeed, diamond. :-)
Have a great evening.
1,171
posted on
04/17/2003 2:43:52 PM PDT
by
k2blader
(Pity people paralyzed in paradigms of political perfection.)
To: k2blader
The money has become more important than anything. California's colors have finally shown through. It's a long way from where it was in 98 99. There never was a core belief in the constitution on this site was there.
To: k2blader
The money has become more important than anything. California's colors have finally shown through. It's a long way from where it was in 98 99. There never was a core belief in the constitution on this site was there.
To: Lazamataz
UP IN ARMS? |
Read related story |
|
Will your vote be affected if President Bush signs extension on 'assault-weapons' ban? |
It would be such a constitutional betrayal, I'd have no choice but to vote against him |
31.46% (1809) |
|
I'd be disappointed but would still vote for him |
24.66% (1418) |
|
I'd be outraged and tempted to vote for a candidate from another party |
13.60% (782) |
|
It's not an issue that would affect my vote |
12.17% (700) |
|
I would have voted for Bush but definitely won't if he signs extension |
10.26% (590) |
|
I'd never vote for Bush, under any circumstances |
4.02% (231) |
|
It's a step toward needed gun control and I'd be more likely to vote for him |
1.41% (81) |
|
He's finally beginning to see the necessity of gun control, but I still wouldn't vote for him |
0.17% (10) |
|
It's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't vote for him because I'm a Democrat |
0.03% (2) |
|
TOTAL VOTES: 5751 |
|
View previous Polls |
|
|
|
To: FSPress
Barbara/Streisand. I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I live and breath for restoring them and our Liberty and for dumping the socialist liberal RATs out of their controlling positions in government. That's why I am passionately opposed to allowing any Democrat from gaining or holding office.
I see the Democrats and their socialist platforms as the enemy of freedom, enemy of Liberty and enemy of the Constitution (not too mention just flatout corrupt and their party platform, ie, socialism, slave taxism, gun control, government sanctioned and enforced homosexualism and abortion, etc., as purely evil).
I see dumping the RATS and not allowing them into government in controlling numbers as the first step (note: "first step") in restoring constitutional government. Those who are bent on dumping the Republicans are simply going to reinstall Democrats in their place and forestall any chance of constitutional restoration. What good can that possibly bring?
Here's the roadmap:
- First step: Dump the RATs.
- Elect Republicans.
- Build a controlling supermajority.
- Appoint and confirm conservative judges.
- Repeat at all levels of government.
- As majorities build: dump the least conservative of the Republicans and replace with with more conservative candidates.
- One by one, build cases against existing unconstitutional law and or prior Supreme Court decisions and bring to the newly conservative courts to strike down or reverse.
- Lobby the conservative congress to repeal existing unconstitutional laws.
- Lobby the congress to begin dismantling the socialist welfare state and the police state.
- Build cases for repealing all unconstitutional gun control laws and lobby congress and or the Supreme Court to get it done.
- Repeat for each area where federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.
- Repeat above at state and local levels.
- Build a case for amendments to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the income tax, the IRS, FICA, the SSA, medicare, etc.
- Build a case for an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment and bring to congress and to the people.
- Ensure that the second, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth amendments are fully restored and enforced.
- Restore state and local government control (ie, the people) over crime, social, welfare, education and environmental issues.
- Enjoy and diligently defend the Liberty newly restored and secured for ourselves and our posterity.
Repeat as necessary.
1,175
posted on
04/17/2003 3:36:01 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(FReepers are the GReatest!!)
To: Jim Robinson
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As I said, there is no room for liberal or authoritarian debate on this issue.
According to the U.S. Constitution, this is one of our primary unalienable rights. They cannot deprive you of this. Just take a Constitutional stand and refuse to give up your gun.
Any Congressman who tries to infringe your right is a traitor to the Constitution and deserves to be defeated.
103 Posted on 11/28/1999 11:24:02 PST by Jim Robinson (
jimrob@psnw.com)
__________________________________
That was then, this is now:
"I'm a liberty minded individual who backs the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 100%, but there is no way that I'm going to dump Bush or dump the Republican majority. Not now. Not ever."
-Jim Rob-
How do you square the above, with this?
"Any Congressman who tries to infringe your right is a traitor to the Constitution and deserves to be defeated."
To: tpaine
See my roadmap above. If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.
1,177
posted on
04/17/2003 4:04:22 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(FReepers are the GReatest!!)
To: Jim Robinson
Then let's get the show back on the road. Right now it's going to the left.
To: FSPress
The show is on the road. Time for the naysayers and obstructionists to get aboard.
1,179
posted on
04/17/2003 4:10:25 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(FReepers are the GReatest!!)
To: Jim Robinson
Once again, you're assuming that the best way for Republicans to win is to suck up to the anti-gun crowd. The committed anti-gunners will vote Democrat anyway. For that matter, most hard-core conservatives will vote Republican anyway. However, the blue-collar union Democrats in states like West Virginia will desert to the Democrats in droves if Bush sells us out on the 2nd Amendment; after all, they
already disagree with us on issues like Davis-Bacon and the minimum wage, so becoming anti-gun will make them less likely than ever to vote GOP.
If you really want to continue the GOP revolution, get on Bush's case to reverse himself, and quick.
1,180
posted on
04/17/2003 4:10:59 PM PDT
by
Kenno
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180, 1,181-1,200 ... 1,621-1,638 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson