Posted on 11/17/2008 11:20:08 AM PST by Bodhi1
Define R.I.N.O.: A Republican In Name Only.
Examples of the type of Republican covered under this definition are:
These five supposed Republican are nothing more than jackasses in elephant's clothing. Rep. Mark Kirk has introduced a bill, H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008, which would "To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act." The bill has been co-sponsored by the other four jackasses listed above. All of them claim to be Republicans.
All of them need to leave the party.
Seriously.
Go.
(Excerpt) Read more at allamericanblogger.com ...
I'm part of your so-called problem also!
And I'm judging the party because of the MAJORITY of RINO's undermining conservatism.
Problem?? This is a conservatism board, not the "I support the GOP AT ALL COSTS" board.
Be back to the no flash hider, no collapsible/folding stocks no bayonet lug. This was to reinstate the 94 ban.
What is up with Ros-Lehtinen?? Once upon a time she seemed reliably conservative. And as a former Cuban, one would think she would understand the need for the citizenry to own weaponry. Someone needs to explain American history to her, evidently she didn't understand what was taught when she was being naturalized. I don't see anything indicating anti-gun tendencies in her Wikipedia entry.
Full auto are already highly regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act. You have to submit forms and pay a $200 tax to the BATFE to own a class 3 weapon. On top of that, us mere citizens can’t purchase newly manufactured machine guns (since 1986), hence, the prohibitive cost.
I’m with you caver!!
Insanity rules the land!!
Be Ever Vigilant!!
Conservatives unite!!
There’s no such thing as a dangerous and unusual weapon.
What about Alaska?
Scumbags
This is an ordinarily expectable outcome of the constant morphing toward the left by the GOP in general, and the acceptance of Party over Principle by the voters.
Conservatives must demand conservative candidates, conservative policy, and use the Constitution as the benchmark.
As for me, I made up my mind long ago that the Second Amendment states that the Government is supposed to protect my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but in the absence of that protection, my Right still exists, and I will continue to exercise it.
In the event the Government will not protect my Right to be secure in my person, property, and effects, I reckon that, too, will be up to me.
In the event the government abridges these Rights, they are the ones acting illegally.
Hey, what are a few more lost jobs? They are trying to shut down, ranching, farming, oil, coal, the unions have the automakers on the mat, and with them steel and the parts manufacturers, and now a few folks making firearms?
If we are all going to be unemployed in the near future, maybe it would be good to make plans to go visit and see how this gubminting stuff is done...
LOL! Man, that says it all.
Unfortunately, they’re the very heart and soul of today’s compromising, appeasing, big spending, bipartisan, BOR shredding GOP. It’s the management that needs shown the door.
As a geologist, I would find it professionally embarassing to be within sight of the AGW/'Climate Change' bandwagon.
What lunacy.
Now HR 1022, that's the real Ugly "Gun Ban". It would ban more weapons by name, including some on the "protected" list in the old ban, such as the Mini-14/30 and M1 Carbine. It has a stronger "clone" ban, and only requires 1 "evil" feature rather than two. One of those is the dastardly pistol grip, defined as "anything that can function as a grip", so all center fire semi-automatics, with removable magazine, would be outlawed. For handguns again many semi-autos would be banned by characteristic, rather than by name, again only 1 evil feature is required for both handguns and semi-auto shotguns.
Sponsor was Cynthia McKinney, with 67 cosponsors None of which are the RINOS cosponsoring HR 6257, AFAIK. (PDF Version of HR 1022) Expect this one to be the one that gets passed early in the next session, perhaps just in time for The One, who said he was in favor of an AWB(look under "CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT"), because "such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets".
I would take my weapons and survival necessities and head for the high country. Once there I would try to link up with a patriot group. If they come for your weapons its time to fight — period.
The bill was introduced Jun 12, 2008, after most or all of the R primaries. But before The One became the anointed Messiah of the DemonRat party. Of course Hitlary would be happy to sign such a bill too. But if it had passed, it woudl be “W” that would sign it, as he promised he would if it came across his desk. He generally keeps his promises if he can.
If they manage to pass a law that says "shall not transfer", then there will be no legal "prebans" for sale either.
Figure on numerous other prohibitions on parts kits, parts in general and surplus ammunition. Sentencing enhancements for possession. Etc.
What we will have here is a basic Constitutional crisis. As they say, between Barack and a hard place. Something has to give.
"Of course you realize, this means war."
Just like did the original? Not.
That's pretty much what the militias of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Acton, Menatomy (Now Arlington) and the rest of what is now the greater Boston area thought. And what they did.
Leftist leaders (of either party) are fully aware that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop them (not just from banning guns, but from doing a lot of other things).
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.