Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/30/2002 12:11:21 AM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Mini-14
I find it illuminating that Cincinnait OHIO is reporting the largest exodus to the Kentucky side of the Ohio River. Ohio has Draconian Concealed Weapons prohibitions and a crime rate to prove it...not to mention a chronic race riot problem...Way to go Howard Metzenbaum...what a Legacy!!!
2 posted on 04/30/2002 1:01:48 AM PDT by sleavelessinseattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
Why bring this up now? The AW ban will quietly expire in less than 2 1/2 years. I don't like this at all.
5 posted on 05/01/2002 6:24:08 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
the Second Amendment, which contains the clause granting Americans the right to bear arms

Who is this idiot? It's not a 'clause', it's the expressed meaning of the amendment.

6 posted on 05/01/2002 6:31:07 AM PDT by asformeandformyhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
Ashcroft has sure turned out to be a disappointment.
9 posted on 05/01/2002 6:52:21 AM PDT by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
Let's see, the NRA gets Bush elected and Bush turns around and hires Anti-gun Senators to attack the NRA and its supporters in court. Every day Bush appears to be the liberal Keyes and Buchanan said he was.
13 posted on 05/01/2002 7:03:14 AM PDT by Kobyashi1942
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
The only silver lining I could see, is that this old coot will botch his arguement and end up losing. Man, I know I'm grabbing at straws.
14 posted on 05/01/2002 7:08:46 AM PDT by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
Don't knock Ashcroft yet. Yes, he's defending the AWB - but (a) that's his job, and (b) who better to defend a bad law [with the ultimate goal of destroying it] than someone who opposes it? Ashcroft is acting as "Devil's Advocate": by representing the other side, he ultimately HELPS us.

The challenge eventually had to be made. Question is, would you rather have "death to gunowners" Reno defend it or "NRA life member" Ashcroft?

23 posted on 05/01/2002 8:40:54 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
Ashcroft has never been anything but a self serving weasel. He will do and say absolutely anything that will secure his power. Why isn't he a Democrat?

The Atty. Gen. may be responsible for defending all laws, but nothing requires him to do it well. All the Govt. had to do was show up in court and say it was a stupid law and they didn't like it either.

So9

26 posted on 05/01/2002 8:52:01 AM PDT by Servant of the Nine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
Hate to point this out, but this was "news" 10 days ago, and was liberally covered on FR at that time.
48 posted on 05/01/2002 11:27:12 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
". . . Second Amendment, which contains the clause granting Americans the right to bear arms."

The Second Amendment reaffirms an inalienable right Americans have to keep and bear arms! God gives us the right to protect ourselves, not the bleeping government or a piece of sacred parchment!

61 posted on 05/01/2002 2:03:48 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
"And as attorney general, Ashcroft has to enforce and defend existing laws, even those that he might disagree with."

The Bill of Rights trumps anything Congress comes up with, short of amending the Constitution itself. Knowing Atty. Gen. Ashcroft's background, this can only mean one thing, his action in this matter proves him to be a simple tyrant in support of the same.

Duck hunting my ass!

62 posted on 05/01/2002 2:33:29 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
He argued that assault rifles with combat hardware were not needed by hunters and sportsmen.

Even leaving aside the issue that freedoms in America are not defined by being able to prove a "need", note that the "hunters and sportsmen" phrase diverts attention from the people who really *do* "need" combat gear: Those who prepare for self defense, and the defense of their communities/nation.

Ever wonder why they always get left out?

75 posted on 05/01/2002 4:39:27 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mini-14
In the post 9/11 world just tell Ashcroft there are no longer any "Assault Weapons".

They have all been converted to "Homeland Security" Rifles.

Best regards,


113 posted on 05/02/2002 5:33:44 PM PDT by Copernicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson