Replies

I don't think the gungrabbers are the slightest bit afraid of an armed population rather this issue is just a way of scaring the weakminded into flocking to the RATS for protection. Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government since militia's would not stand a chance against a modern army (nor did they in the 1787.) The times they fought well were exceptions not the rule as Washington repeatedly complained about.

Those bloviating about Bush seem to be under the illusion that there is an actual VIABLE candidate who would be closer to their positions. Bush was the most conservative candidate with any chance of being elected BY FAR. He was BY FAR the most gun-friendly candidate running (not counting the 1%s who appeal to the perpetually disgruntled such as freeee.)

For those who care about the survival of the nation there is no other choice.

Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate, initially it did not even apply to the states only the fedgov. Unless you believe that the Crips and Bloods have the RtKaBA and continue in their lawbreaking ways. The question is what laws ARE justifiable and necessary. With the spread of CC laws it appears those laws are being reduced.

Most of us on the FR recognize that the AW ban is unnecessary and would do no good but its extension should not be used to deprive us of a leader who understands what our principle enemies are and what they want to do. And it should be clear that the possibility of an extension would not exist unless the majority of the people supported the idea. When enough are against it it will go away. That is what needs to be addressed and worked on not quixote campaigns against real friends and fellow patriots.

Plus it should be obvious to all that the spate of gun control laws stopped when the GOP achieved more control of the Congress and the Presidency. I see no reason to believe it will be resumed UNLESS knuckleheads join forces with the RATS to defeat Bush.

Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate

You must have an interesting defintion of "shall not be infringed".

initially it did not even apply to the states only the fedgov

We aren't discussing state bans on this thread.

Unless you believe that the Crips and Bloods have the RtKaBA and continue in their lawbreaking ways.

Please be clear: are you saying the only people who oppose infringement are gang members???

And it should be clear that the possibility of an extension would not exist unless the majority of the people supported the idea. When enough are against it it will go away.

Rights aren't up for a vote. If they were, they wouldn't be rights, they'd be priviledges.

Your analysis seems about right in most points. The question is why the hell would the President take a chance on pissing off a fair number of his voter base to uphold what is an obviously flawed and worthless piece of Clintonoid legislation? Certainly, Pres Bush doesn't need to pander to those who will vote for Feinstein (and her ilk) no matter what.

I grant that all politicians (including Pres Bush) will take the easy way of political expediency especially if there were legitimate polls that indicated that a large majority of people were behind the AW ban (or other unconstitutional laws; we have seen that over and over again). But until the media (with the help of some lunatic perpetrating a major massacre) whips up an hysterical frenzy over this, the Republican Congressional Leadership should understand that they have a lot more to possibly lose if they send along a permanent extension of this law. Several studies have been commissioned concerning the effects of the 94 AW ban, one from the Clinton administration DOJ itself. The conclusion has been that this ban has had no measurable positive effect on the incidence of gun crimes.

How much political capitol do the Repubos think they are going to get from making this worthless law permanent? It can be renewed only at their detriment. The real truth about this whole business, is that the media is somehow behind the entire thing; that they want to push this to front stage to scare the already squeamish repubos into thinking that little old ladies will demand their heads for "bowing to the likes of the NRA". I think the entire notion that the President is "in trouble" with his core supporters is just so much BS invented by the media, the propaganda arm of the DNC.

For those who care about the survival of the nation there is no other choice

I will grant that the pack of rabid demonRATs running for the White House are a scary lot, indeed. But I'm not sure that a Republican Congressional majority and Republican control of the White House for the next 20 years will save the Republic. I have no doubt that the nation would survive another 8 years of RAT-domination; but what form it would be in after that is another thing.

There are many reasons to fear for the future of the Republic, however; the big one is how long major entitlements like Social Security and Medicare can go on spending at ever-increasing levels relative to how much tax money the bastards can steal from those who earn it.

I do think that while not all RATs fear the armed citizenry, at its core, the leadership of the DNC does see armed revolt as a possibility, should they push their real agenda too fast. As I said, there is always the unpredictable.

The 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution for a reason: the Founders certainly did not think it would ever be impossible for the armed citizenry not to be able to remove a tyrannical government. It was considered as a last resort, and the Founders writings on this are clear. I firmly think that the armed citizenry today does present a little problem to those who think that they can institute some sort of soft communism. There can be no other reason why people like Feinswine push for these unconstitutional laws. The RAT voters on the whole are a hell of a lot more interested in keeping abortion legal and keeping the welfare state growing than they are in disarming the average American.

"Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate, initially it did not even apply to the states only the fedgov."

Huh? Who is the one that is being sucked in by the liberal agenda, I am finding hard to believe you are NRA with that statement.

"Most of us on the FR recognize that the AW ban is unnecessary and would do no good"

Unnecessary? No, we call it unconstitutional. What part of shall not infringe do you not understand? That is paramount in the NRA.

"That is what needs to be addressed and worked on not quixote campaigns against real friends and fellow patriots."

If he signs the extension or a new AWB, he is not a friend of the Constitution or conservatives, nor is he a fellow patriot. This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It is not the only issue, but one of many, that will define if he is a friend and patriot.

"Plus it should be obvious to all that the spate of gun control laws stopped when the GOP achieved more control of the Congress and the Presidency."

It may have stopped, but that is not enough all the unconstitutional laws should be revoked. With the GOP controlling Congress and the WH, there is no reason this can't happen. But again, you being in the NRA, you should know that.

You wrote to flashbunny #119 and to 45Auto #107:

It --- [The right to bear arms] --- wasn't even IN the constitution until amended.
Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose " ... being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." --- says nothing about protection FROM the state.

Their [the militas] practical function was almost entirely to protect the citizenry from Indian attacks. Against a real army they were of limited use ----

--- Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government since militia's would not stand a chance against a modern army (nor did they in the 1787.)

Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate, initially it did not even apply to the states only the fedgov.

Unless you believe that the Crips and Bloods have the RtKaBA and continue in their lawbreaking ways.
The question is what laws ARE justifiable and necessary.

With the spread of CC laws it appears those laws are being reduced.

Most of us on the FR recognize that the AW ban is unnecessary --
But it should be clear that the possibility of an extension would not exist unless the majority of the people supported the idea.
When enough are against it it will go away.

That is what needs to be addressed and worked on not quixote campaigns against real friends and fellow patriots.

______________________________________

You brand yourself as a believer in the 'militia' theory of the 2nd.. -- then go on to say:

-- "Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government" ---

An outright admission that, to you, our various levels of government are not bound by "shall not be infringed"..

To ice the cake, you claim that blacks in LA who are suspected of gangsterism have no RKBA's as such laws may be "justifiable and necessary".

And to finish up you make an emotional appeal that we should allow majority rule to win on the AWB renewal, --- as when maybe a new majority gains power it would "go away", -- using the same harebrained theory..

Jsuati, my boyo, you are WAY over the edge here..
-- Thanks.. Bizarro posts like yours are alotta fun..

Plus it should be obvious to all that the spate of gun control laws stopped when the GOP achieved more control of the Congress and the Presidency. I see no reason to believe it will be resumed UNLESS knuckleheads join forces with the RATS to defeat Bush.

Umm NO.

The "spat" of gun control laws stopped when the Republicans got control of the house in '94. It had nothing to do with who was president. In fact, the Republicans actually acted like Republicans for the most part when Clinton was in office. So maybe we could expect the Republicans to grow some spines if a democrat were to take office?

You are delusional. First of all, of course the gun grabbers are afraid of an armed populace. Why in the hell else would they outlaw "assault weapons" handguns, .50 cal sniper rifles that can penetrate the armor of their limos (so they say) etc. You're crazy if you think otherwise.

And as far as militias defeating an army, well the American one defeated the mighty British army, and some jihadis armed by the Americans defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan so don't say it can't happen.

You are nothing more than the Republican version of the limo liberals who keep black folks on the Democrat plantation all these years later. I for one have had enough.

>>Plus it should be obvious to all that the spate of gun control laws stopped when the GOP achieved more control of the Congress and the Presidency. I see no reason to believe it will be resumed UNLESS knuckleheads join forces with the RATS to defeat Bush.

oh?

note: the reptiles in the house passed on voice vote, after SUSPENDING the house rules to ship the reauthorization of the 'plastic gun ban' off to the senate where the reptiles passed it as a 'CONSENT' item and George the Duce signed it.
since plastic guns don't per se exist they might as well have banned klingon disruptor while they were at it...

is that is upholding our Second ammendment? *NOT*

I'm willing to be the reptiles do the same thing with the AWB and make it DiFi friendly as well (permanent)

r who doesn't know what happened to his republican party at all.