UPSET GUN OWNERS SET TO DUMP BUSH

Worldnetdaily ^ | April 17, 2003 | By Jon Dougherty

[ETERNAL WARMING]

"Ignorant Knee-Jerkers Set To Shoot Off Their Nose To Spite Their Face"

Yes. I believe they're called Bots on this site. :0)

[ETERNAL WARMING]

And if you have watched Bush, you might realize that some things he allows to remain until he has all the info on it to make a decision. Do you need examples?

You mean like Yucca Mtn. where he promised the people he'd review the science and vote accordingly? Turns out the science is incomplete and he shoved it to the people of Nevada anyway. He's lost this state. I know many hard core Republicans who will NOT vote for him again.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Is someone banging on your door right now, wanting to take it from you?

No but they will be if our pols keep conceding an inch at a time.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

You need an AW to defend yourself? Are you kidding

Look NYC. Any terrorist has far bigger fire power at his disposal. It's the equivalent of pitting a NYC cop with a 22 against Al Capone. Get it?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Yeah let's get rid of Bush and put a scumbag Democrat in there.
That'll teach 'em, LOFL!!!

It just might, Lancey. The next Republican that steps forward won't make the same mistake.

The way to tackle problems is to look at all the facts and then plan a strategy. Name calling just won't work outside of High School.

The usual arguments simply won't cut it. One issue, Bush bashing etc are just plain ridiculous, can't you see that? There's a serious problem here and it needs to be faced or Bush will indeed be a one termer.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Please explain why you feel you need the ability to carry an AW?

Please explain to me why a supposedly Conservative President doesn't uphold the Constitution that he's sworn to protect? That is the bigger question.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

if you're going to spend the political and Constitutional capital on an infringement of the Second Amendment, you ought to at least have a good reason. And the AW ban most certainly does not pass that test.

What is it you don't understand about the 2nd? Penis envy? Give me a break.

[CWOJackson]

Isn't it kind of boring making all these posts to people who are asleep?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

It will be W that gives the election to the Democrats, not us voters. The onus is on him. If he continues to alienate his base, he's history. It's that simple. Are we supposed to vote for him no matter what he does? George Bush is the ONLY ONE who can hand this election to the Democrats.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Your vote means nothing. For every croaking bullfrog like you that leaves the GOP, I can bring two normal, productive independent human beings into the party.

LOL Then you'd better get to work. You have your work cut out for you.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

*Paleo - Latin for "tiny penis"

You know Arne, it's people like you that give this site a bad name. Grow up.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Just do me a favor and don't pretend that you're manning the ramparts in your guarantee to be the last bastion and defender of Liberty

I hope you never need them Chancellor. You'll be on your own with that attitude. All alone. What will you fight them off with, your Bush 2004 button? Doesn't the dismantling of the Constitution mean anything to you? It's the very basis of our freedoms in the USA. It's our guarantee.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

LOL Could it be because he is "choosing to alienate every potential friend with hyperbole and unfounded arrogance" LOL

[ETERNAL WARMING]

That's why I'm floored with the number of posts by "conservatives" in support of this law.

You're confusing Republican with Conservative. Many are not. sigh.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

At least a Democrat president seems to energize the less-RINO congressmen to resist. And the RINO population seems to care more about freedom when it is threatened by someone other than their boy.

Thankyou TB.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

This AW Ban extension should die in Congress and never reach his desk

Er...wasn't that what everyone thought about CFR? Well it made it to his desk and he signed it. What's makes you think he'll do differently?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Joe Hasn'thadanyinyears doesn't think I'm a conservative...I'm devastated.

[roughrider]

And ... what do computers and cars have to do with owning an AK-47? Your trite remarks do not answer my question.

1. The same liberals who want to take away Second Amendment rights are also opposed to people owning SUVs, as is constantly pointed out by Rush Limbaugh. "Why does anyone NEED a SUV?" demand such leftists.

2. You do not understand the difference between actual assault rifles and the kind of SEMI-automatic firearms that are affected by this ban. An ASSAULT RIFLE (most of them are actually CARBINES, not rifles, as they have less range than the longer barrelled rifle) has a selector switch on it. When you turn the switch to "FULL AUTO," it fires like a machine gun. When you turn the switch to "SEMI-AUTOMATIC," you can only fire a one shot at a time, but do not have to manually work a lever, bolt, or pump action to eject the empty cartridge and load a new one. That is why it is called "SEMI-AUTOMATIC."

The term "automatic" refers to a mechanism in the weapon that ejects the empty, fired cartridge casing and loads the next round from an external or internal magazine that holds the unfired cartridges. Some of the weapons use mechanical AUTOMATIC reloading, like the German Luger pistol, and others use "Blowback" technology that captures the gases from the firing of a cartridge and forces the gas back into the weapon to work the mechanism that reloads the next cartridge. An "automatic" carbine fires and reloads as long as your finger presses the trigger. A "semi-automatic" must have the trigger depressed in order to work the mechanism to eject and load. They are SINGLE-SHOT weapons, not AUTOMATIC weapons. The only differences between the banned weapons and hunting weapons that are semi-automatic are:

A. A semi-automatic carbine has a shorter range.

B. Some semi-automatic carbines "look like" the military arms from which they are copied. An AR-15 "looks like" an M-16, but has no flash suppressor or lug for receiving a bayonet. Actually, this makes the AR-15 LESS of a "militia" weapon than an M-16, and, according to one Supreme Court decision, it is MILITARY ARMS that are those protected by the Second Amendment, as a militia is supposed to drill and train with actual military weapons, not with civilian market knock-offs. That decision identified all the military weapons that were protected under the Second Amendment by branch of service and specialty, such as an Artiller soldier could own the military sidearms of the day that were applicable to the artillery, an artilleryman's sword and revolver. A cavalryman could own a saber, revolver, and carbine that were in use in that branch of service. An infantryman could own a long rifle in use in the service and a bayonet to be fitted on the long rifle.

The Second Amendment does not secure SPORTING ARMS, although no one should be worried about them. The Second Amendment actually supports the ownership of MILITARY ARMS. I am talking about the small arms used by the branches of the service that are not crew-served weapons, such as machine guns, Stinger missiles, etc. Crew-served weapons require more than one soldier to use them. No one in the militia kept howitzers in their front yards. The Supreme Court only addressed small arms used by individual soldiers.

What this means is that, in addition to the Second Amendment as an issue, the erosion of the institution of ACTUAL State Militias, organized by State Governments and regulated by Congress, as opposed to the National Guard system we now have, should also be discussed with the issue of gun ownership. To be a true militia, the officers have to be recognized by the Governor and Legislature, and they must regularly drill and train, with the militia being under the regulations established by Congress.

Assault "Rifles" and Machine Pistols/Submachine Guns: People confuse these two weapons. An assault rifle has the same fully automatic capabilities as a submachine gun, but has a carbine configuration (shorter rifle) and can accept a bayonet. The carbine also does not fire PISTOL ammunition. A submachine gun fires the same caliber of ammunition that the primary sidearm of an army fires. In World War II, the German MP-40 fired 9 millimeter pistol ammunition and the US Thompson submachine gun fired 45 caliber pistol ammunition like the Colt .45. Like the assault "rifle" (Assault rifle was the German designation for such weapons, but they are not rifles) the submachine gun is designed to be most effective in close quarters combat. "Sweeping" and "brooming" are terms used to describe what they are intended to do, as the submachine gun was originally designed to "sweep" World War I trenches of enemy troops once an attack caused soldiers to enter enemy trenches or fire down into them at close range.

The only real assualt RIFLE was the Browing Automatic Rifle. It was fully automatic (fired like a machine gun) was not crew-served, and was constructed in the configuration of a large rifle.

[Woahhs]

What I wish for...is Republican leadership, and not a few of the rank and file, to grow a set of guts.

And what makes you think I don't??

Uhmm... Is this a trick question? How 'bout the rest of your post!

Did you see the Democrats backing down when their only advantage was a single seat in the Senate?

What about the Estrada nomination? Does it look like they're worried about having their feet held to the fire for their contempt of the Constitution?

I'm glad he's gone, but Lott would still be majority leader if he'd just told the democrats and the press "piss off...I was being nice to an old man on his birthday."

Here's a word to the wise; if you're gonna call yourself a Christian, don't make excuses for the Bible.

You flatter yourself by claiming "to tend to face reality." You're running away from boogie men. That's why I keep asking you for the upside. Your nebulous fear the President could be weakened by supporting gun rights is not connected to any objective reality.

That being said, he will most definitely be weakened by failing to support gun rights. The only question is "how badly?"

If you want to play "chicken little," that's your business. But for pete's sake, stop covering up your lack of intestinal fortitude by trying to convince others your "sky is falling" proposition has merit. In fact, you're proving it has no merit by not having an answer to the upside question.

... I do support President Bush and also realize that he is not perfect and he has a hell of a mess to clean up after the 8 yr. nightmare called Clinton. I also realize that it has take over 40+ years to screw this country up to the point it is today and there is no way that Bush can clean this mess up over night ..

Set aside the validity of this statement; what does it have to do with guns? What, in your mind, would be a better hill to fight for than the restoration of the clear intent of an article of the Bill of Rights?