Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
Private sales of firearms are not subject to the Brady law, by the will of Congress expressing the will of the people. It was dickered over for years. If anything, Brady needs replacing by the NRA "instant check" as soon as possible -- but the grabbers don't want that. They are wedded to waiting periods, because they know what every salesman knows, that delay can kill a sale.
Grabbers want to kill all sales of firearms, don't you understand? Whatever works against firearms sales, ownership, possession, or use -- they're for, and will fight tooth and nail for every incremental inconvenience to people exercising their rights. They're ideologues, and the idea that a people can be armed -- and potentially resist their omnipotent State -- is hateful to them.
Is any of that hard to understand? Or do you challenge the correctness of the vision?
From this post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704177/posts from WND ----
If Al Gore were president today, Republicans in Congress would no doubt rise in righteous indignation to quickly kill such a plan. However, with a fellow Republican in the White House, all such opposition has vanished. The bottom line is Bush is pursuing Clinton's agenda and getting a free pass.
Consider this: Bush has already issued 57 executive orders and has already created 47 new federal agencies. His Justice Department has declared that U.S. citizens, whom it declares to be "Enemy Combatants," have no constitutional rights – none. Such people do not even have the fundamental right of legal representation. <<<< SNIP >>>>>>>
Beyond that, Bush's support for liberal policies on things such as the federalization of airport security, proposed amnesty for illegal aliens, a boost in funding for Clinton's AmeriCorps program, a worst-ever education bill and a constitutionally-challenged campaign-finance reform bill simply reveal Bush's perpetual propensity to continue Clinton-style government.
Point me to that post again.
I don't demand that others beg me to stay on the "reservation". I also don’t whine about “censorship” on one thread while, as you do, demand it on the Keyes love fests. Registered meet hypocrite.
clap, clap, clap! ;)
It was me. Or at least I was one of them. This is no secret. Bubba-2 was asked during the primaries if he would sign a bill to make the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" permanent when it sunsetted,and he said "If Congress passes and sends it to me,I will sign it."
I see no reason to disbelieve him. Especially not after the tapdancing he and Ashcroft did about Emerson,where they stated that even though the 2nd Amendment was a individual right,the feral gooberment STILL had the right and obligation to regulate WHO may own guns,and what KIND of guns they may own. They were clearly terrified that Emerson might result in the overturning of GCA-68 and other un-Constitutional power grabs.
Uh the post on a knee jerking Bush bashing thread, where you stated that you wished that Ronald Reagan was still around and then I pointed out that Reagan raised Social Security taxes, instead of even mentioning reforming the system.
Your reply was that you were not basically politically aware back in the 80's.
If he signs it -- just prior to the 2004 election -- watch as every NRA member sits this election out.
And then Poohbah and Texasforever can say that we don't matter any more.
The Bush Enigma
How then can one explain George W. Bush, the man on whom so many Americans placed such great hope? All we can say is that there are several theories to choose from, all of which fall in the realm of speculation.
One theory holds that he is a good man with fine instincts and excellent intentions, but is such a hater of confrontation that he has effectively been steamrolled by the non-conservatives who surround him.
Another theory holds that he was never a real conservative in the first place, but i8 a very capable orator who can read a good speech and produce a convincing image. The United Republicans of Texas published such a view after having experienced all of the years that George W. Bush governed their state.(37)
One individual who shares the view that Mr. Bush's political effect has never been conservative is Thomas Gale Moore of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. In a syndicated column appearing in, (38) he discussed the much-publicized Bush plans to cut spending and reduce bureaucratic regulation. But Mr. Moore then cautioned:
Skeptics find President Bush's record as governor, often alluded to during the campaign, far from reassuring, especially since he used much the same rhetoric during his gubernatorial campaigns as appeared later during his campaign for the presidency.
While in Austin, he converted the state income tax into one of the most progressive in the nation, introduced withholding taxes, raised sales taxes, and sharply increased taxes on business.
While he was in office, Texas government expenditures increased faster than was typical of other states. Notwithstanding his campaign rhetoric, welfare expenditures alone escalated 61 percent in real terms during his two terms as governor.
That is hardly a record that should merit the label "conservative."
And then they get irate when you tell 'em "Adios!"
The key is so called 'unlicensed dealer'. That's the media term. Never mind that being an unlicensed dealer is a major felony. The target is all private sales. That's what the hoopla over what a 'gun show' is, etc.
The term 'assault weapon' is a takeoff of 'assault rifle'. A true assault rifle is a military term for all guns that fire both semi and full auto. A class 3 license is required for a full auto. These so called 'assault weapons' are there to ban ugly looking guns that LOOK like these military rifles. My .30-06 deer rifle is more powerful than a AR-15(.223 caliber). Most AR-15's though are considered AW's though.(Flash suppressor, grip in front or back(forgot which one is illegal), more than 10 round magazines), etc.
It's simply a slippery slope until guns are banned. That's the agenda(VPC and CSGV publically call for it), the Joyce Foundation, Soros, etc funds both those 'extreme anti's' and the 'mainstream' groups like the Brady's. The Tides foundation(tied to McKelvey) also funds banners CSGV.
I know the agenda of these groups. I've been to a few of their meetings and most of this info comes straight from their own sources.
As for bazookas and nukes, those are not considered 'AW's', but weapons of mass destruction, and are in their own category.
Excuse me if I don't give most of your posts substantial answers -- you've proven yourself a buffoon to me too often for me to try too hard with you.
But I'll make an exception here.
Give me the url.
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.