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

Skip to comments.

The 2004 Hunt. Presidential candidates on guns.
NRO ^ | November 18, 2003, 9:11 a.m. | By John R. Lott Jr.

Posted on 11/18/2003 11:55:52 AM PST by .cnI redruM

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
>>>>>>>>>>>>Howard Dean supports extending the assault-weapons ban next year "because I never met a hunter who needed an AK-47 to shoot a deer."

Principle-Powered Howard gets to Bush's right on guns. What a protector of the 2nd Amendment.

>>>>>Senator John Kerry offered, "When I go out there and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault weapon."

John 'Wayne' Kerry, Great White Hunter of the Wild Frontier, has probably hunted no further for red meat than Outback Steakhouse.

What an utter load of pandering crap!!!!!!!!!!!

1 posted on 11/18/2003 11:55:54 AM PST by .cnI redruM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
It's been pretty obvious for quite awhile that our government is scared to death of an armed populace that has the capability to restore the liberties they have played so fast and loose with. All this talk of hunting and such is crap. I want my right to hold a gun to assure that our high and mighty have real a reason to do the right thing by the electorate and don't get too high and mighty. The people quoted in this article are just the sort who need to have that uppermost in their minds when they legislate on our behalf.
2 posted on 11/18/2003 12:10:29 PM PST by Lee Heggy (When marriage is outlawed only outlaws will have inlaws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
It funny to think that the first court decision about guns control was a gangster that could not prove that his shotgun was for military purposes. Because of that he lost the case. Now you can't have a gun for military purposes, as per the second amendment. How in the world did that happen?
3 posted on 11/18/2003 12:11:49 PM PST by vpintheak (Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Dear Sen Kerry. If the terrorist decides to attack soft targets such as a sleeping suburban street in the middle of the night with automatic gunfire (see the movie Invasion USA starring Chuck Norris), you can confront them with a 12 GA shotgun or 3 shot bolt action rifle. I will grab my "assault rifle", and at the end of the shoot out, let's see who would be found dead on his lawn with an empty weapon in one hand and live rounds clutched in the other hand in desperate attempt to reload. You didn't learn anything in Vietnam, sir.






4 posted on 11/18/2003 12:11:58 PM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
With their hostility to gun owners, good luck to the Democrats on winning the South.
5 posted on 11/18/2003 12:15:39 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
"When I go out there and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault weapon."

When you have a Mossberg 590, your 12 guage shotgun IS an assault rifle... heh eheh heh heheheh (evil laugh)

Amendment II: 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.

does anyone see the word "hunt" in there???

6 posted on 11/18/2003 12:23:59 PM PST by bc2 (http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Who makes you feel safer, the Right or the Left?


7 posted on 11/18/2003 12:24:14 PM PST by JoJo Gunn (Help control the Leftist population - have them spayed or neutered ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bc2
does anyone see the word "hunt" in there???

Only if the game is Al Quaeda and the bag limit does not exist.
8 posted on 11/18/2003 12:28:47 PM PST by .cnI redruM ('Bread and Circuses' ...Fun until you run out of dough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
With their hostility to gun owners ... winning the South.

Hmmm.... Candidate Bush promised to sign an Ugly Gun ban renewal, if presented with such. President Bush has not repudiated said promise.

If the Republican Party aparatchiks want this Southron to vote for Mr. Bush in November 2004, they had bloody well better make sure he doesn't have an opportunity to act on that promise. If an Ugly Gun ban renewal even progresses so far as to be voted on by a subcommittee, they haven't been doing their jobs.

9 posted on 11/18/2003 12:30:10 PM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM; *bang_list
I was just about to go to NRO. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
10 posted on 11/18/2003 12:31:28 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Did you forget to mention that President Bush also supports extending the ban?
11 posted on 11/18/2003 12:35:18 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Classic bait and switch. Bush only promised to sign the gun ban because he knows it will never hit his desk. Gets a few soccer moms (aka sucker moms) and doesn't upset those of us who aren't afraid of the looks of a weapon.
12 posted on 11/18/2003 12:38:06 PM PST by mushroom (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
I didn't forget. It just won't ever get near his desk, once the House votes it down.
13 posted on 11/18/2003 12:40:09 PM PST by .cnI redruM ('Bread and Circuses' ...Fun until you run out of dough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mushroom
because he knows it will never hit his desk.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... It bloody well better "never hit his desk". That of course, is up to the leadership of the Congress. And to Mr. Bush himself, through back-channel arm twisting.

14 posted on 11/18/2003 12:43:03 PM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Governor Howard Dean supports extending the assault-weapons ban next year "because I never met a hunter who needed an AK-47 to shoot a deer."

Mr. Dean, let me make this a clear as I can: The Second Amendment to the Constitution is not about sporting, and the targets implicit in its guarantee consist neither of paper nor venison.

15 posted on 11/18/2003 12:43:16 PM PST by LTCJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
once the House votes it down.

If it gets that far somebody, some (sub)committee chairman, hasn't been doing his job.

16 posted on 11/18/2003 12:44:40 PM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LTCJ
As Zell said of Hatred-Powered Howard; he's glib, but not very deep.
17 posted on 11/18/2003 12:45:37 PM PST by .cnI redruM ('Bread and Circuses' ...Fun until you run out of dough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
That's true as well. Which committee would get that bill?
18 posted on 11/18/2003 12:46:16 PM PST by .cnI redruM ('Bread and Circuses' ...Fun until you run out of dough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
That's interesting. Are you then suggesting that, if Dean or Kerry were President the House would pass it and send it to him? If so, I'd have to differ. In a case where the President was a Democrat, the Republican controlled House (and its members) wouldn't be under the pressure of party discipline to support their Republican President, as they are today.
19 posted on 11/18/2003 12:47:34 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
It funny to think that the first court decision about guns control was a gangster that could not prove that his shotgun was for military purposes. Because of that he lost the case. Now you can't have a gun for military purposes, as per the second amendment. How in the world did that happen?
_______________________________

Actually, he never even showed up to argue his case in front of the Supreme Court. The Court said that they would not take notice of the fact that a shotgun hjad a military purpose in the absence of any evidence. Had he not fled, he might have won.
20 posted on 11/18/2003 12:49:06 PM PST by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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