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

Let em' have it Indiana Freepers.

Senator Evan Bayh's Web Mail form: HERE

1 posted on 02/24/2004 6:02:13 PM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Jhoffa_
the perenial hometown liberal spews forth his filth again. I hope he loses his next election bid
2 posted on 02/24/2004 6:03:48 PM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jhoffa_
RINO Senator Warner (VA) also supports reauthorizing the ban. I called his office today and voiced my displeasure.
3 posted on 02/24/2004 6:08:02 PM PST by gieriscm (The AW ban sunsets on 09/13/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jhoffa_
Well if they just re-authorize the CURRENT ban it is a big nothing cause it had no effect on buying a semiautomatic rifle just had to make cosmetic changws

BUT if they start closing the loopholes that is where the trouble lies


7 posted on 02/24/2004 6:20:00 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jhoffa_
Bayh voted for the gun show ban too. He talks conservative, but he sucks royal like my two sinators.
8 posted on 02/24/2004 6:24:40 PM PST by Dan from Michigan ("You know it don't come easy, the road of the gypsy" - Iron Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jhoffa_
Mini-14 Rifles:
The Ruger Mini-14 rifle is chambered for the popular and proven .223 Remington cartridge and has an adjustable rear sight. The Mini-14 employs a simple, rugged version of the Garand breechbolt locking system, with a fixed-piston gas system and self-cleaning moving gas cylinder. Since its introduction in 1974, the Mini-14 has proven itself many times over, both in farm and ranch use, and in law enforcement and security applications. Options include blued or stainless steel and hardwood or synthetic stocks.

This illustrates the insanity of the AWB. I've tested this "non-threatening", traditional-looking rifle against my AR-15 and, lo and behold, it is just as fast and accurate. Shorter, too. But it's not subject to the AWB.
11 posted on 02/24/2004 6:43:23 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus (Keep 'em in the ten ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jhoffa_
Does the ignorant (censored) uunderstand that banning weapons only means that the criminals will still get them, but it will keep these "pseudo-weapons" out of lawful citizens hands?

Typical LibRat

12 posted on 02/24/2004 6:46:04 PM PST by Maigrey (Kerry is the epitome of Bipartisanship - He's on both sides of every issue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jhoffa_
Let em' have it Indiana Freepers.

Let him have this. If Mary Beth Grismore had been carrying a handgun, Evan Bayh wouldn't be a senator now.

No wonder the Bayh crimninal gang doesn't want their victims to be armed.

13 posted on 02/24/2004 6:46:35 PM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jhoffa_
The AWB is directly about the RKBA.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.
21 posted on 02/25/2004 7:29:27 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ 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