Posted on 02/24/2007 6:37:47 AM PST by pabianice
RINO.
Are we brave enough to be free? We still have -- more or less -- the great rights of the ballot, the bulletin, the bullion, and the bullet. I think that we are brave enough.
You mean (shudder) SNIPER Rifles....
How quickly the Dems forget what a losing issue gun control is for them.
It's just a simple fact that for many generations, America has known only strength and Peace due to the sacrifices of a few brave people who fought for their freedom.
They are ignorant but certainly not "worthless scraps of human flesh". Under different circumstances, I strongly believe that the free American spirit would be revived if there were an undeniable threat on us.
World Terrorism is still too distant at the current time to be considered a threat. In WWII, several highly organized militarily oriented fascist governments made undeniable attacks on World freedom. If it ever became as evident in this era, the same thing would probably happen.
Thanks for illustrating my point.
THey have a long list on their agenda. The spent the last 8 years off line.
Elections have consequences.
Plus slide/pump and lever actions. Break action s too of course.
What they don't realize is that what they really should be worried about are bolt action or break action rifles in heavy calibers, 7mm and above. More accurate and longer range.
Of course banning those will come in the name of banning "sniper rifles". All they'd have do would be to delete "semi-automatic" from the following definition, and that would do it. Then if they substituted "firearm, for "rifle or shotgun", they'd ban most every handgun as well.
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
Politics is their religion.
The most sweeping gun ban ever was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
Not only the Constitution...
"This country belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
--Abraham Lincoln
how's the old saying go, "if Vince Foster had really had a gun in his hand, he might be alive today"
You're right... However, I also remember AG Ashcroft stating that the 2nd Amendment affirms the individual's right to keep and bear arms.
I miss AG Ashcroft.
Mark
Know the enemy. From 1999:
"Clinton also embraced elements of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's legislation which provides criminal penalties for adults if juveniles use their weapons for illegal purposes.
(Rep. Carolyn McCarthy lost her husband during a shooting rampage in Long Island)
McCarthy became a congresswoman because little happened on toughening crime measures after her husband was killed nearly six years ago during a shooting rampage on the Long Island Rail Road.
At the event she said, "We're hearing from the other side already, 'There is nothing we can do.'"
"I'm sorry. You have heard of so many proposals. There is something we can do. There has to be something that we can do," McCarthy responded."
http://www.cnn.co.hu/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/27/clinton.crime/
So much for claims by the Rudy boosters that gun control is a dead issue. Instead, we have gun grabber extraordinaire Carolyn McCarthy trying to massively EXPAND the AW ban signed by Slick. The same Carolyn McCarthy Rudy stood with and avidly supported in 1997 when she wanted more federal gun control after the 1997 Empire State Building terrorist attack.
The REAL problem on that LIRR train was that there was nobody able or willing to disarm Collin Ferguson. Of course, needless to say Ferguson was the only one armed on the train... Had there been one armed civilian, that civilian could have put an end to Ferguson's rampage.
McCarthy's response? We need to be sure that all potential victims are disarmed and defensless. Don't spend too much time trying to make sense of it.
Mark
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.