Skip to comments.
Turn Your RNC Donation Letter into a Demand to Allow the AW Ban to Expire (ctext)
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78587&highlight=politicians ^
| 06/27/2003
| NYPatriot
Posted on 06/27/2003 5:03:35 PM PDT by thorshammer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
I'm with NYPatriot, it's time for them to take action and I feel this will get their attention. This is what they will received from me also.
To: *bang_list; AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; ...
Great idea. What I've been doing for a while is simply writing across the form
"ALLOW THE 1994 ASSAULT WEAPON BAN TO SUNSET, THEN WE'LL TALK". Then it goes back on their prepaid dime. I have yet to get a response back. $:-)
2
posted on
06/27/2003 5:08:21 PM PDT
by
Joe Brower
("The free man cannot be long an ignorant man." -- William McKinley)
To: thorshammer
I usually send money to them twice a year but about a month ago I sent them back a note saying that the second payment went to the NRA instead of them so they should go get it from them.
3
posted on
06/27/2003 5:10:47 PM PDT
by
microgood
(They will all die......most of them.)
To: thorshammer
Great idea! I believe I'll follow your lead.
To: thorshammer
Too little too late. It ain't happening because there is little support for it.
People still have their guns and don't really want assault weapons in their closet. I expect it to be renewed, possibly with some amendments. They will be lucky to keep handguns out of it.
5
posted on
06/27/2003 5:12:00 PM PDT
by
Cold Heat
(Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
To: Joe Brower
What I've been doing for a while is simply writing across the form "ALLOW THE 1994 ASSAULT WEAPON BAN TO SUNSET, THEN WE'LL TALK". Then it goes back on their prepaid dime. I have yet to get a response back. I have used similar tactics for years- usually about lowering taxes, slashing regulations, drilling for oil like crazy, and going to nuclear power- but I'll use the AW ban in the next batch I get...
6
posted on
06/27/2003 5:12:33 PM PDT
by
backhoe
(Just an old keyboard cowboy, ridin' the trackball into the sunset...)
To: Joe Brower
I wish I'd thought of that. I just threw mine in the trash.
7
posted on
06/27/2003 5:12:48 PM PDT
by
.38sw
To: wirestripper
And then they can wonder why they will lose the midwest.
To: Dan from Michigan
It 's a tough political decision, but not the toughest Bush has faced. he has taken a stand on many hot issues for the conservative electorate.
I see no reason to trash him if he signs a renewal on that particular bill. Most folks just are not interested in it, and that includes gun owners. feds have a right, (according to the nine) to regulate commerce. This bill falls into that niche and most people accept it.
Those are the facts, not necessarily my opinion but I just cannot seen to get excited enough about it to make it an issue for re-election.
There are too many other issues that are more pressing now.
9
posted on
06/27/2003 5:22:05 PM PDT
by
Cold Heat
(Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
To: thorshammer; kristinn; Clinton's a liar; ironman; dbwz; technochick99; basil; PistolPaknMama; ...
That rules!
10
posted on
06/27/2003 5:22:31 PM PDT
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(There be no shelter here; the front line is everywhere!)
To: wirestripper
This time, the ban could be permanent (subject to repeal by a future congress and presidency, of course) and more comprehensive in scope.
11
posted on
06/27/2003 5:23:55 PM PDT
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(There be no shelter here; the front line is everywhere!)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It is the comprehensive part I worry about. Not the ban.
A AR15 is a nice plinker, but it is limited in it's uses.
Sure don't need a mini or streetsweeper.
I think most people feel that way and that is why it passed to begin with. I would be opposed to adding guns that are not purely designed to kill two legged game, and they better not mess with currently legal handguns or some damn insurance pool that I heard someone advocate.
I will be all over their butts.
12
posted on
06/27/2003 5:34:18 PM PDT
by
Cold Heat
(Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
To: thorshammer
Personally, I'd donate to county organizations. They need the money a lot more than the RNC (of course people will have to use their own judgment on individual county organizations and their worth).
13
posted on
06/27/2003 5:36:09 PM PDT
by
Republican Wildcat
(Help us elect Republicans in Kentucky! Click on my name for links to all the 2003 candidates!)
To: wirestripper
I see no reason to trash him if he signs a renewal on that particular bill. Most folks just are not interested in it, and that includes gun owners. feds have a right, (according to the nine) to regulate commerce. This bill falls into that niche and most people accept it. Well I do. It's my litmus test issue. The feds have no rights, only powers. There power to regulate interstate commerce is restricted by the command not to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Amendments are like that, they change the original document. Besides, most of what they do under "regulation" of interstate commerce is really restriction of interstate commerce, and that they have no power to do. "Regulate", in this context, meant and still means, to make function properly and the power was included to keep the states from restricting commerce, not to allow the federal government to do so. I don't really give a flip what the 9 say about something I can read and understand for myself. It's not as if the Constitution is full of legalize, although there is a bit, not much but some, of language that is not in common useage today.
14
posted on
06/27/2003 6:39:27 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: thorshammer
I send mine back-- seems like I get one every week-- with words to the effect that Bush has not been in any way the veteran-friendly president he seemed to suggest he would be in the campaign. This state has a lot of veterans he has screwed and a lot more in the making. He won the state the last time by a small margin. If he doesn't shape up, we will be shipping him out.
To: wirestripper
I disagree, the very first day after GW's comments the White House received over 10,000 emails. This is going to be a real fight.
They do want to renew it and make amendments. Good God they just showed where they want to ban Potato Gun's. Give me a break.
With the sunset, before the elections, make your intentions known and be loud about it. NO AW PERIOD! Let it die the death it deserves.
To: Joe Brower
I have yet to get a response back. $:-)They just want your money not your input.
When we get our letters of begging for more money I just take the return already paid postage seal it empty and send it back.
These lying politicians are all the same they don't want anything from you but your easy come easy go donations.
I'm through with all of them since I do not count for anything but what they can squeeze out of me with their fake make you feel guilty plea!
They live in a different world from ours, the real world.
They, like the religious beggars, care not for you as an individual only what and how much they can screw you out of.
To hell with all those who fit this pattern and they are legion.
17
posted on
06/27/2003 7:10:17 PM PDT
by
VOYAGER
To: thorshammer
As I said, I would be against adding a bunch of useless crap and will fight it, but the political reality is that the law will likely be renewed.
The support was strong for the original vote and I do not think that has changed.
Bush will have to decide if he wants to give the rats a big election issue or tick off a few conservative gun owners.
From the statements I have seen on the forum recently, those ticked off conservatives took or threatened to take that vote away prior to this issue.
I will give him the right to make that call and it won't hurt my feelings a bit. I just don't see the importance of fighting this politically.
The main problem is the term "assault weapon".
18
posted on
06/27/2003 7:14:06 PM PDT
by
Cold Heat
(Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
This time, the ban could be permanent (subject to repeal by a future congress and presidency, of course) and more comprehensive in scope. Not just "could", but rather "would". The milder Senate version of the "renewal" makes it permanent. It also bans importation of full capacity magazines, regardless of when manufactured. (a wee loophole you understand).
The House version also makes it permanent and greatly increases the number of weapons banned, by reducing from two to one the number of "bad" features allowed. If that passes, say bye bye to any removeable magagine semi-auto with a pistol grip, and that's very strictly defined so as to possibly include a pistol grip stock that is common on many rifles and most definitley includes a thumbhole type stock. Plus it add's several guns by name, such as the M-1 Carbine, and the Mini-14. Of course the idiots didn't include the M-1A or the Mini-30, because they are not only Constitutionally challenged, they are just plain dumb. Heres' the House version's "By name" list.
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
`(ii) AR-10;
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
`(iv) AR70;
`(v) Calico Liberty;
`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
`(xi) M1 Carbine;
`(xii) Saiga;
`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
`(xv) SLG 95;
`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
`(xvii) Steyr AUG;
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
`(xix) Tavor;
`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
19
posted on
06/27/2003 7:14:39 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: VOYAGER
LOL! Not very cynical are you?
20
posted on
06/27/2003 7:15:50 PM PDT
by
Cold Heat
(Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 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