Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chuck Woolery on Assault Weapons (nails every point!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=evEg1VNfX3o ^

Posted on 12/23/2012 8:07:31 AM PST by Red in Blue PA

Chuck Woolery for President!


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: awb; banglist; guncontrol; secondamendment; sourcetitlenoturl

1 posted on 12/23/2012 8:07:39 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

bttt


2 posted on 12/23/2012 8:08:37 AM PST by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter

ping... worth watching...


3 posted on 12/23/2012 8:23:00 AM PST by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

HOORAY Chuck! Ban criminals/socialists/totalitarians who want to FORCE you from tools that protect you from them.

DEPOPULATE them from the body politic. ID them. They’re coming out of their ratholes.


4 posted on 12/23/2012 8:24:15 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

I’m not a fan of Jesse Ventura but he did a great job b#tch slapping Piers Morgan on his own show.

He explained prefectly the reason for the Second Amendment.
(and he said it has nothing to do with hunting)

And had the crowd APPLAUDING!!!!!


5 posted on 12/23/2012 8:27:06 AM PST by RedMonqey ("Gun-free zones" equal "Target-rich environment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

That was awesome!


6 posted on 12/23/2012 8:29:22 AM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

That was awesome!


7 posted on 12/23/2012 8:29:53 AM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
Jesse can be one of the best stopped clocks out there. He may only be right twice a day, but he seems to have a knack for being right when it's important that he be so.

His "conspiracy" show on global warming really took Maurice Strong to task.

8 posted on 12/23/2012 8:30:43 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Chuck always nailed the final spin on Wheel.
9 posted on 12/23/2012 8:53:11 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

[[DEPOPULATE them from the body politic. ID them. They’re coming out of their ratholes.]]

I say have them arrested- they obviously are anti-Americans who care more about illegal’s rightsd than they do abotu law abiding citrizen’s rights, and as such, they have peroven htemselves unworthy of leading a nation that values LAW ABIDING CITIZEN’s rights over ILLEGAL CRIMINAL’s Rights- These rats are provign to be treasonous to law abiding citizens by demanding that we unarm ourselves and protect the ‘rigths’ of criminals to use firearms (their lawyers usually get them off of the illegal gun charges thanks to liberal idiots who value criminal rights over victim rights)

There is a massive massive push on right now to ban guns- every paper I see for datys now has multiple stories pushign to ban guns because these pukes think that because their dear leader got another 4 years that they can ram through gun control- and sadly it may work- and for those that think it ‘could never happen here’ I’m sure many in countries liek Australia, austria britain etc all said the same damn thing- claiming that their government would never ban their firearms, nor woudl the folks ever submit to such bans- we see how fiercely the peopel foguht to retain their rights in those coutnries when the government infact DID ban their rights to own guns- ie they DID NOT FIGHT to keep their right- (there may have been small pockets of the population that mildly protested- but on whole, the whole country voluntarily gave up their rights to own firearms without so muh as a squeek-

That is what hte dems are countign on over here- and they are pressuring their dear leader to be bold enough to ram through a ban on firearms-

We live in a dangerous time where the left is the ONLY party left that has a voice, and where they waqnt to trample on our constitutional freedoms and rights because freedom and rights for citizens is a thorn in their sides cocnerning complete cotnrol by the government—


10 posted on 12/23/2012 9:05:20 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Something every state should do

2nd Amendment Preservation Act

AN ACT, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation Act.”

To prevent federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms; nullifying all federal acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF (STATE) DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 The legislature of the State of ____________ finds that:

A. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

B. All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment

SECTION 2 PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

A. The Legislature of the State of _______________ declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE

A. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

11 posted on 12/23/2012 9:10:35 AM PST by jrd (DO AWAY WITH THE EPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

just a couple of points, a lot of what he says is spot on, however, he also says soem htigns that are goign to give the left amunition agaisnt gun owners-

1: He talks about the left saying assault weapons are ‘more dangerous than handguns’ then says ‘really? an assault weapon is a littlem ore dangerous than a glock 9mm?’ My goodness- the issue is NOT abotu what is ‘more dangerous’- the fact is all guns can be dangerous- but soemtrhign beign dangerous does NOT give our government hte right to ban them when it is knownm that dangerous items are used properly- the shootign in sandy hook did NOT happen simply because the gun was ‘more dangerous’ itr happened because a sick person used a LEGAL instrument ILLEGALLY. People very often intentionally use dangerous vehicles ILLEGALLY to murder others- shoudl we baqn vehicles too because a large car can run into a crowd and kill lots of people whereas a smaller car might kill a few less? The nuts o nthe left are gopign to jump all over chuck’s statement because he didn’t clarify that all guns ‘Can Be Dangerous’ just as all vehicles ‘Can Be Dangerous’ IF used ILLEGALLY- but just because osmethign can be used ILLEGALLY doesn not give the governemnt the right to ban the LEGAL use of the items by law abidign citizens ESPECIALLY when htose items are used for self defense!!!

2: He says the left arguies that the foundign fathers ‘didn’t even know what an assault weapon is’ but then doesn’t go on to show how the foundign fathers felt abotu the issue- he just insinuates and makes the assertion that hte left is wrong without explaining why- He realyl shoudl have explained why- it woudl help his case tremendously to do so- now the left gets to claim ‘He just says whatever he likes, makes stuff up- and doesn’t have any facts to back it up’ He just gave htem more amuninition agaisnt his argument unfortunately

He makes the claim that our founding fathers want us to be armed equal to the army? This is hte first I’ve heard of htis? His point that our founding fathers wanted us to be protected agaisnt a tyranical government is a strong point- and one he shoudl push hard because it’s true- the whoel reason for the war of independence was to free us from a tyranical government- and our foundign fathers wrote our constitution to STOP tyranical governments- gove3rtnemnts liek the nutcase left are tryign to espouse and push for

I liek most of what chuch said- however, folks arguing the case for gun rights need to craft their arguments very carefully- especially right now where America’s emotions are runnign very high because any misteps ARE goign to be pounced on by the left- our5 arguments NEED to be rock solid and devestatign to the left’s assinine arguments


12 posted on 12/23/2012 9:34:47 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

You really need to slow down on the typing or at least do some spell checking! :)


13 posted on 12/23/2012 9:48:08 AM PST by US_MilitaryRules (Unnngh! To many PDS people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jrd

Excellent points JDR- This is on e of hte best posts I’ve seen on the subject- however, We NEED our Federal supreme court to PROTECT US from a tyranical government by allowing us to bear arms liek our constitution guarunteed- howevber, I see the john roberts is NOTY interested in upholding the constitution, nor in prote4ctign us from a tyranical government as is his sworn duty to uphold- This shoudl be a federal preservation of secodn amendment- not local or state- but it’s looking more and more liek the federal is unwilling to grant us our constitutional right to bear arms-

I don’t see the states enacting such an amendment either because hte government will bully them into not pasing it by withholding federal dollars to that state-

I foresee the the government banning guns- and the people begrudgingly handing over their weapons- I foresee perhaps soem resistance which will be immediately stopped by a heavily armed government entity, and htne more peopel complyign with the govenrments UNCOSTITUTIONAL mandate/law, and I foresee our supreme court doign NOTHING to protect us agaisnt such tyranny like they are sworn to do DESPITE johyn roberts assinine assertion that that is not the supreme court’s job to prrotect us agaisnt tyranny

This coutnry is in a bad bad place right now- and thanks to millions of conservatives who withheld their vote out of a warped sense of idealism because the gop canbdidate was less than perfect, we are now in a very dangerous situation cocnerning our constitution and our rights- and we are seeign it play out right before our eyes as news media all across America are commiting what amounts to trreason agaisnt law abidign citzens by demanding we give up our right to protect ourselves agaisnt criminals and tyranny-

The girl on ‘the five’ said “We’re goign to see an ‘uleashed [dear leader] if he gets in for anothjer 4 years’ and brother- that’s just what we’re goign to experience too- he now has nothign to lose- and he is falsely claiming that the peopel ‘gave him the mandate to enact radical change’ because they voted him back in-

The supreme court set thsi whole thing up by John Roberts ASSININE and unconstitutional claim that the supreme court’s job is ‘not to protect us agaisnt bad choices’ and claiming htat if we do make a bad chjoice then ‘all we have to do is’ to ‘vote that person out again’. By doigfn what roberts did- he gave thsi rogue leader the ability to say ‘the peopel voted- they gave me the right to enact radical change- if they didn’t want radical change- they wouldn’t have voted me in- but hte fact htat they did means they want radical change-” and he gets to say this knowign hte supreme court will NOT protect us agaisnt such radical change3-

the supreme court decided they were no logner goign to do what they were hired to do- and htey were our last defence agaisnt a rogue govenrment- but first the govenrment MUST get guns out of our hands before they begin radical change- and that is precisely what it appears they are tryign to do

There’s a bad bad wind blowing- Let’s all pray that God protects us through this all- although I do feel this is God’s judgement on a wicked and sinful nation that is htrowing Him completely out of our society- infact makign it illegal to even mention Him in public anymore- We are reaping what the left has sown-


14 posted on 12/23/2012 9:53:53 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: US_MilitaryRules

[[You really need to slow down on the typing or at least do some spell checking! :)]]

I blame my editor


15 posted on 12/23/2012 9:54:43 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Sad state of affairs when a nation’s talk show hosts are smarter, and wiser, than their president.


16 posted on 12/23/2012 10:33:32 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Er, meant to say GAME show hosts.


17 posted on 12/23/2012 10:35:26 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Excellent!!!!!!!!!!


18 posted on 12/23/2012 10:36:15 AM PST by bmwcyle (We have gone over the cliff and we are about to hit the bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
There is a massive massive push on right now to ban guns- every paper I see for datys now has multiple stories pushign to ban guns because these pukes think that because their dear leader got another 4 years that they can ram through gun control- and sadly it may work- and for those that think it ‘could never happen here’ I’m sure many in countries liek Australia, austria britain etc all said the same damn thing- claiming that their government would never ban their firearms, nor woudl the folks ever submit to such bans- we see how fiercely the peopel foguht to retain their rights in those coutnries when the government infact DID ban their rights to own guns- ie they DID NOT FIGHT to keep their right- (there may have been small pockets of the population that mildly protested- but on whole, the whole country voluntarily gave up their rights to own firearms without so muh as a squeek-

The papers are stupid to go along. If the public were disarmed and the government no longer needed their semi-willing cooperation, what would they need the papers for?

19 posted on 12/23/2012 10:41:31 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA; All

I am sensing that Liberals and Gun Control Fascists are not having a “Love Connection” with Chuck Woolery right now.

His famous Love Connection line should be amended to “be back in 2 with a .22”.

Good to see someone in entertainment not be a brain-dead liberal (note that Woolery started out as a country music artist and had a few hits in the 60’s and 70’s)


20 posted on 12/23/2012 10:48:23 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (Seems that the ones who understand little about the economy are economists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Our Supreme Court protect us? Are you delusional? Have you forgotten Obamacare and how the SC protected us? Yeah, I have a lot of confidence in them./s


21 posted on 12/23/2012 11:15:49 AM PST by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Anyone know what happened to Pat Sajak’s commentaries? He used to write for Human Events but hasn't done any new commentaries there in years. I find some on Ricochet.com but not much new. His website has nothing on it but his name.
22 posted on 12/23/2012 11:18:02 AM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Very impressive. Reminds me of how years ago I heard that there was an actor running for California governor. I couldn’t figure out what a guy that introduced mule team Borax to his television audience AND coming from LaLaLand was running for anything other than dog catcher. Thank the Lord he didn’t listen to my laughter..


23 posted on 12/23/2012 12:46:11 PM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyman

Yeah, but for an encore we get Ahhh-nold, Jesse Ventura, and Al Franken.


24 posted on 12/23/2012 2:45:28 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Very good analysis, CottShop! Thanks. BTTT!


25 posted on 12/23/2012 7:42:04 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

[[Our Supreme Court protect us? Are you delusional? Have you forgotten Obamacare and how the SC protected us?]]

didn’t you read what I said (I knopw my typing is terrible and it was probsably a terrible read- but I clearly said that our supreme court has NOT lifted a finger to protect us, and has infact doen just hte opposite thanks to that traitor to this country john roberts who apparently loves beign paid to shirk his actual job description. I clearly laid out that our supreme court and john roerts in particular are NOT protecting us- I said the ultimate solution woudl be to have a supreme court settle thsi case fairly and without ANY bias- just liek they are supposed to do- but of course they will not-


26 posted on 12/23/2012 9:08:49 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Home viewing bookmark.


27 posted on 12/24/2012 12:16:53 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jrd
B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any State or federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

A slight modification, needed in many states that infringe upon the Second Amendment with permit requirements, etc.

28 posted on 01/17/2013 10:30:02 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
He makes the claim that our founding fathers want us to be armed equal to the army? This is hte first I’ve heard of htis?

Check out Tench Coxe:


The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Also think about the implications of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power
...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Not much point in granting Letterrs of Marque, if no one can own an armed ship. A ship with cannon, that is a privateer. (Letter of Marque grants the power to capture or destroy the shipping of an enemy nation. The Rules are about how to split the booty.

The Revolution started when the British Regulars tried to take the colonial's arms, including 3 cannons. They never got the cannons, and one of them is today in the museum near Concord's Old North Bridge.

29 posted on 01/18/2013 11:25:18 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Well that’s it, I’m gettign myself an armed ship- always wanted a hosueboat/battleship

Seriously htough- thanks for the info- I wasn’t aware of that-

[[and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;]]

Which obviously means ‘make rules abotu how to capture on land and water’ but unfortunately, the left will think that ‘make rules’ means limitting the right to own guns- or any other rules they can think of- That’s how they twist our constitution


30 posted on 01/19/2013 12:13:37 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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