As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

[Jesse]

"He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does."


Do we really have to go through what the difference is between a right and a privilege, and a need versus a right?

A right is inherent, God-given, and not dependent upon what another person thinks it is or should be.

A privilege is.

A need is essential for the survival or well being of a person, but is not necessarily a right. For example, you have a need to eat. You do not have a right to force me to feed you.

Why is it you believe that what you think should be, should be for me?

[LurkerNoMore!]

Do you think President Bush is as liberal as Chuck Schumer?

yes or no, please

[diamond6]

I'll admit, I may not be as knowledgeable about which guns apply to this law, as you. However, would you be in favor of allowing the public to purchase machine guns?

[Ramius]

Dubya is anti-gun, yet he is sneaky with it because he masquerades as a Conservative.

I think he is as liberal as Chuck Schumer.

Yeah, right. Then please go vote for Chuck. He could use the votes, I'm sure.

[MatthewViti]

well said!

[Lancey Howard]

The Second Amendment's biggest threat is the Nineteenth Amendment.

[sinkspur]

I'm fairly certain that Bush is a one termer.

Yeah. All you disgruntled unappeaseables will vote for big fat Howard Phillips. LOL!!!

Hi Uncle Bill! You're a breath of fresh air.

You must like regurgitated garbage.

[noutopia]

A vote for a libertarian is a vote for the Democrats to win.

[savedbygrace]

There aren't many two-termers, Fred. Most only won a single election. A few years ago, I counted them, but I've forgotten the total. I'm too lazy to add it up again.

[P_A_I]

Why should people own assault weapons?
Because they get assaulted without weapons?

Aren't these clearly weapons of war?
Clearly, aren't all weapons used in war?


Aren't they also used only against people? Isn't this overkill? (literally)
People literally kill people. Overkill is a good way to avoid bring slaughtered.

[Keith]

No, principle means you agree with most of their policies...this "I'm not going to vote for Bush" crap is music to Hitlary's ears. Gimme a break. The Dems will give you a better choice?

This isn't about the PERFECT candidate, it's about the BEST candidate with the best chance to win. If you want to vote for one of those throw away your vote candidates, go ahead, Nader's people made Bush Florida victory possible.

Go ahead..............make their day.

[oldvike]

LMAO!

[Mulder]

How about a machine gun?

First of all, machine guns aren't illegal so long as you jump through all the hoops.

Secondly, you, like most sheeple, have no freaking idea how many "machine guns" the American people possess. It's likely well over 1 million. And when is the last time one of these have been used for a crime?

Should we let anybody get these, too?

By your question, you automatically assume that you have power over other Free men and women, which you don't.

In America, INDIVIDUALS have Rights and possess all the power. We loan a little bit of that power to the gov't to secure our Rights, as Jefferson so eloquently stated in the Declaratation of Indepdendence.

Gun ownership (of ANY firearm) isn't something the gov't "lets" us do. It's our Right as Free men and women.

[Cultural Jihad]

[Bush] is just another lying politician who has fooled the public into thinking he is an honorable guy.

LOL! And that's why you are a great poet and he is just a President.

[The FRugitive]

Ramius it was leaked some months back that the Bush treasury department was researching dropping the income tax and replaceing it with a consumption tax.

[Capitalism2003]

I'm a heretic...I agree with the ban. I know...I know...it is an infringement on the 2nd ammendment...and I know criminals will end up getting these guns anyway, but if a ban will keep these cop killing weapons out of the hands of just a few bad guys, I think it is worth it. A 15 shot 9mm or a shotgun is all you need to defend your home and your property...and I don't think machine guns are necessary for hunting. Keeping them legal is no huge benefit to the law abiding public...offers no extra protection to home owners, and makes it easier for criminals/terrorists to kill LOTS of people in few seconds. Things like this seem like common sense to me...There should be SOME limits, just as there are with free speech.

flame away

[LurkerNoMore!]

Of course, it's never too soon for uncle bill and his buds to start their usual JBS Chicken-NWO-Little routine. Has he ever been right about anything?

NO.
And I've been a 4 year follower of Uncle Bill and his research.

[DBrow]

Diamond, please define what you mean by "assault weapon", and compare that with the Federal definition. What exactly in legal terms is an "assault weapon"?

Schumer declared that "assault weapons" were so powerful that states did not allow their use in hunting, because they were so devastating that they would not leave any edible meat. The truth is, some states do not allow them for hunting because they simply are not powerful enough to drop a deer or elk with one or two shots. A Colt AR-15 (assault weapon if it has a flash hider and bayonette lug) has nowhere near the power of a 30-06 Garand (not an assault weapon).

If you are going to take the approach of, why on earth does anyone need one, think of the rubric you'd use to justify owning anything at all, from a gun to a car to a knife or laptop.

I used an "assault weapon" 112 times this week in sanctioned competition. Someone else did varmint control on her ranch. Someone else blasted 25 clay pigeons. Someone else has a collection of rifles. Some National Guard folks own their own rifles. Some keep a semiauto for home defense. Choice.

Can you post links to five crimes committed with "assault weapons" according to the federal definition? If you can please do so.