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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,621-1,638 next last
To: Mr. Mojo; Dan from Michigan; Ol' Dan Tucker; Leper Messiah; jedediah smith; aristeides; Deb; ...
There's a decent chance it won't. I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.
To: Uncle Bill
When Triggers are locked only Trigger will have guns...or something like that
22
posted on
04/14/2003 8:01:49 PM PDT
by
woofie
To: Ramius
Well I hope if we make a big enough stink now we can avert this disaster.
I said in 2000 that this would be my litmus test. The only thing that could possibly cause me to sway on that is repealing of the income tax.
If he vetoes the AWB I will vote Bush. If he makes repeal of the income tax a major issue I will vote Bush.
Anything else and I will not. If that's the case and a pro-life candidate runs on the LP ticket I'll vote Libertarian.
If not that then constitution. If not that then I'll abstain from voteing for president.
That's my current plan.
Nobody gets my vote for free. That's the problem with the Republican rank and file...too many people give throw away their vote by voteing Republican regardless.
To: Ramius
Don't paint a broad brushed stroke for all Republicans. Does somebody want to explain to me - objectively, without flaming me - why people should own assault weapons? Aren't these clearly weapons of war? Aren't they also used only against people? Isn't this overkill? (literally)
24
posted on
04/14/2003 8:03:05 PM PDT
by
diamond6
("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
To: Ramius
You want to lose ALL of your guns? LOL!
You make it sound like some tyrant can simply decree (illegally) that we have to turn in all our guns, and it will happen.
As my friend DWSUWF put it before he was banned (loosely quoting): to a Patriot, such an edict would be little more than a bump on the road of the highway of life
Some treasonous witch can declare something as absurd as the earth is flat, blacks have to sit in the back of the bus, or we have to turn in our guns. And in the case of each, there is no moral or legal requirement to follow such an insane edict.
25
posted on
04/14/2003 8:03:22 PM PDT
by
Mulder
(No matter how paranoid you are, you're not paranoid enough)
To: Mr. Mojo
Roger that.
Yes, the AW ban is stupid law. No, it doesn't do anything real. Yes, it infringes on the 2nd. It is NOT, however, the end of the friggin' world.
We will survive it, and the 2nd amendment will survive it. Timing is everything.
26
posted on
04/14/2003 8:03:29 PM PDT
by
Ramius
To: Mr. Mojo
Before criticizing the Prez, let's first see if the renewal even gets to his desk. Frankly, that doesn't even matter to me now that the President is on record as being opposed to the 2nd Amendment.
27
posted on
04/14/2003 8:03:33 PM PDT
by
oldvike
To: Ramius
So you'll be voting for Hillary, I take it? But stomping their foot in disgust feels really good.
28
posted on
04/14/2003 8:04:02 PM PDT
by
HairOfTheDog
(Not all those who wander are lost.)
To: Uncle Bill
"Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said..."![](http://bulldogbulletin.lhhosting.com/images/flagsthree.gif)
Have you researched this issue enough to even know who is Scott McClellan and whether or not what he says matters or is even accurate?
29
posted on
04/14/2003 8:04:22 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Uncle Bill
The current law is a farce
You can get all the so called assault weapons you want with cosmetic changes that make them legal
The real danger is if they modify the law to close this loop hole
30
posted on
04/14/2003 8:04:37 PM PDT
by
uncbob
( building tomorrow)
To: Uncle Bill
Hmmmm, a mostly conservative pro military Bush in office or a liberal? Easy choice. This should put to rest the whining liberals at DU, et al, that we are all bush bots who worship him and love all he does. I will vote for Bush again, even though we disagree on some issues (like this one). Can Bush do better? Sure, could Clinton? No.
31
posted on
04/14/2003 8:04:58 PM PDT
by
chance33_98
(www.hannahmore.com -- Shepherd Of Salisbury Plain is online, more to come! (my website))
To: Brett66
I've read that he's giving lip service to this while knowing that Tom Delay will nuke it. That's the political calculation. I think you are probably right. I think it is unlikely that this bill will ever see his desk. Bush is probably hoping the whole issue will go away. It is a lose/lose situation for him. If he vetoes the bill, he will lose a large segment of "soccer mom" voters, if he signs it, gun owners will retaliate at the voting booths.
Furthermore, while I still hope it is allowed to sunset, the AWB is a bit of a joke. So-called "assault" rifles are still plentiful. Romanian Kalashnikovs can be found for less than $300 at gun shows --cheaper than the Chinese one I purchased prior to the AWB!
32
posted on
04/14/2003 8:06:12 PM PDT
by
Drew68
To: The FRugitive
The only thing that could possibly cause me to sway on that is repealing of the income tax. Whoops, I'm sorry. I mistook this for a rational argument. I would really recommend starting out with reasonable expectations, and then work from there. Just a thought.
33
posted on
04/14/2003 8:06:41 PM PDT
by
Ramius
To: Keith
Reading the responses on this thread reminds me of why the Republicans are often referred to as the "Stupid Party."
Yeah, I know what you mean. Many Republicans actually vote on principle rather than blind party loyalty. It comes back and bites us in the a$$.
34
posted on
04/14/2003 8:06:44 PM PDT
by
July 4th
To: diamond6
...why people should own assault weapons? Don't fall for the propaganda.
The answer is so that people can keep their government at bay.
To: oldvike
Frankly, that doesn't even matter to me now that the President is on record as being opposed to the 2nd Amendment. I assure you that I despise his position on this issue as much as anyone here, and I've Freeped all parties concerned mercilessly. But I'm not going to stay at home or vote for a third party loser (or a Rat) come election day. Are you?
36
posted on
04/14/2003 8:09:01 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Fred Mertz
The answer is so that people can keep their government at bay.
We should allow assualt weapons, and then shut down the seditious militia nutcase organizations who spout off such nonsense as you have.
To: Fred Mertz
So why don't we allow people to own hand grenades, bombs, or nuclear weapons? Is there any limit to what should be allowed?
38
posted on
04/14/2003 8:12:07 PM PDT
by
diamond6
("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
To: Mr. Mojo
But I'm not going to stay at home or vote for a third party loser (or a Rat) come election day. Are you? I can honestly say that I don't know what I'm going to do. I do know that I'd be physically ill if I ever heard the words "President Hillary Clinton".
39
posted on
04/14/2003 8:12:26 PM PDT
by
oldvike
To: The FRugitive; glock rocks; Eaker; Arkinsaw; section9
Dubya is vehemently anti-RKBA, but he has to be sneaky with it because he is a Republican.
That is my honest opinion of his stance on the RKBA.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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