[justshutupandtakeit]

True conservatives understand there is no chance of electing a more conservative president than Bush and they understand that the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything. Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented. Such things were never even imagined by our founders.

I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced. Those who turn away from him are neither conservatives nor patriots rather they are such as one would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse.

You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.

[Stew Padasso]

So where do you draw the line?

"Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented."

Everybody hand in your guns and use your muskets to fight off a tyrannical governmnet outfitted with the latest and greatest arms. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

Next you'll tell us that the second amendment is for duck hunting.

[Badray]

"I am an NRA member. . . "

Yada, yada, yada.

You are the one that is cutting and running - from principle. That the Founders never considered the Internet doesn't mean that we should be licensed or taxed to communicate with it. If we allow this ban to stand or be extended, it builds prededent for more bans and more limitations.

Take a stand on principle and quit worshipping the man that is complicit in destroying the Constitution.

[556x45]

LOL! Let me guess...when they tell you youre huntin' arms are illegal youll turn them in and feel like youve done your patriotic duty.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.

As the President stands gawking at millions of illegal aliens pouring into our country, creating massive, nationwide lawlessness, while this open border lunacy has lit the fuse to this national security time bomb......

As some of you just appear to "shut up and take it".

Eventually you wont have any freedoms or even a sovereign country left to worry about.

[spunkets]

" the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything. Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented. Such things were never even imagined by our founders.

You are just simply wrong. Not only are you cluless about our founders use of assault weapons. They intended future citizens to have the same access to the best tools the same way that they did. Perhaps you are forgetful, or just selectively so, the founders owned their own cannons. What do you think Ben Franlin's job was during the war?

"I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced."

Such weapons? They are needed to oppose tyrants and traitors.

"cut and run at the least excuse."

We'll see what goes down when the hand's played.

[Dan from Michigan]

True conservatives understand there is no chance of electing a more conservative president than Bush

BS. I work in the field and know how things work. We can elect someone much more conservative if he sells the package correctly. Bush is PERCEIVED as much more conservative than he really is.

they understand that the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything.

Tell it to the dems that got fired in 94.

preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced.

The greatest evil our nation has faced isn't in a foreign land. Saddam and Bin Laden are evil, but not as evil as tyrants here at home. I'm not calling Bush a tyrant. I don't think he's a bad guy personally, just someone that gets bad advice at times. But tyrants here like a Janet Reno type are the biggest evil. George Soros is the biggest evil.

would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse.

That's BS. I don't cut and run. Rather I call out those that do. If he signs the RAT's AW ban, than I will not vote for him for backing RAT policies.

[Travis McGee]

Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented. Such things were never even imagined by our founders.

The words of a fool. Muskets and flintlock rifles were the "assault rifles" of their day. Any wound usually resulted in a screaming death from sepsis, or an amputation that didn't kill you from gangrene if you were lucky. Today, a far higher % of gunshot victims survive and return to full activity than they ever did in 1780.

As far as the "rapid fire" feature of semi-autos, even in 1780 any lunatic could take a 1" bore goose gun, load it with rusty nails, and unleash it on a picnic or church. If anything, the results would be more horrific than an attack today with modern weapons, given modern medical advances.

Anyway, the entire point of the 2A, in the words of the founders, was to permit the citizens to be as strong as any standing army, in order to prevent the rise of unchecked tyranny.

I shudder to think that you don't grasp this.

[45Auto]

Those who turn away from him are neither conservatives nor patriots rather they are such as one would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse.

I think this is an unfair characterization of those of us who fight on the front lines every day in one way or the other to try and make sure that the Constitution and the Republic (what's left of them) remain as a viable option in a world over-run by the PC crowd, by tyrants, dictators, socialists, communists, assorted riff-raff and vermin in and out of government bent upon subverting if not outright destroying the fabric of the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever been a party to. I see no difference between the overt RAT-bastards in the US Senate who blatantly are trying to turn the Republic into a socialist nightmare nor the 9+ 1 idiots who are "pretenders to the throne" running for the RAT nomination, and a Republican Party, the so-called Party of Freedom, that will compromise on basic issues of liberty as layed out in the Bill of Rights. The choice we then have is one of hard-core socialism or a "soft" version of socialism. The end result is the same - liberty takes a back seat to political expediency. I am under no illusions that we are as free as the good citizens were in America in 1810; no, we are living in post-Constitutional America - a place where there is no real separation of powers, where the media (as you put it) and the political establishment are in bed, where there is no real difference between the two main parties, except to blind loyalists who can "see no evil" in a slow, incremental compromising away of basic freedom and principles.

I support the President in much of what he wants to (and has) accomplish(ed); I really would like to vote for him (and send along what money I can) and help assure that the Repubos might gain a larger majority in Congress. I am willing to compromise on certain issues, like taxation, abortion, campaign finance, education - but I am NOT willing to give up one more inch of ground in the fight for the RKBA. As goes the 2nd, so goes the Republic. We are at an historical cross-roads in the history of the US; we can either work to stop the advance of socialism, or we can compromise our way to it. The choice is ours.

[NMC EXP]

True conservatives understand there is no chance of electing a more conservative president than Bush

True conservatives? No, you mean mere republicans.

...they understand that the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything.

Again, by "they" you mean republicans, not conservatives. If a true conservative stands for anything it is the Constitution. People like you are proof this country needs a Constitutional literacy test as a prerequisite for voting.

Regards

J.R.

[Mulder]

I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced

If he's so busy fighting evil, why does he want to waste finite federal resources prosecuting Americans who put bayonet lugs on their rifles?

Sounds like that only helps the 'evil doers' by diverting resources from pursuing them.

[sheltonmac]

I am an NRA member...

Just a guess, but I don't think the NRA will be calling you to do any campaigning for them. You'd be a great kneepad salesman, though.

[xsrdx]

I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man

You then, are part of the problem.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, nor does it specify limits on magazine capacity.

The NRA leadership sees this for what it is - unfortunately, some NRA members do not, because they can't fathom why anyone would need an "assault weapon".

"NEED" has NOTHING to do with it.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:
"-- the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything. Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented. Such things were never even imagined by our founders.
I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man -- "

---

9th Circuit Ruling Says Federal Ban on Homemade Machineguns Exceeds Commerce Clause Authority
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1021929/posts?q=1&&page=1

Read it and weep for your gun grabbing position.

[Lazamataz]

I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced. Those who turn away from him are neither conservatives nor patriots rather they are such as one would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse.

Some people are single-issue voters. Their opinion is no less valid, no less patriotic, no less stalwart and solid as yours, who has a blended opinion based on many issues. They are solid allies when considering that position, and you make a mistake to denigreate them.

I personally am a two-issue voter: Jobs and guns. GW Bush is getting much closer to earning my vote, but if he actively pushes for an AW ban, he may lose it. I don't suspect he will be pushing for it too hard.

You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.

I have never taken to this sort of absolutist 'ultimatum'-like statement. One can be with the President in some areas and not others. One can also be ambivilent about a given facet of his performance. On the whole, one must decide the issues that concern them and make a decision to support, oppose, or become apathetic towards a President, based on the internal weight you place on those issues.

[Abundy]

You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.

Nice.

Step one in creating a totalitarian state is stifling all disenting opinions.