UPSET GUN OWNERS SET TO DUMP BUSH

Worldnetdaily ^ | April 17, 2003 | By Jon Dougherty

[dcwusmc]

I agree. jerk is what you are. Surprised that you admit it, though. What you post normally is enough to give you away. The admission is icing on the cake.

[Mo1]

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

Ummm we should fight dirty and break the laws just like the Dems huh??

As for my religion, I don't think I mention anything about that ..

As for Lott, I defended him at first, but then like the idiot that he is, he went on TV and blew it ..

As for the rest of your post .. keep spinning my words .. you are doing a heck of a job

[verity]

The article's title is "Upset Gun Owners....." It does not address any other issues. Pay attention!

[CyberAnt]

If you had bothered to read all the other responses to my messages, you could have saved yourself all that typing.

[nopardons]

No dear, YOU just don't know when you've been bested, outed, and lost. LOL

Go try to bait someone else, someone who will easily fall for your brand of tripe and enter a flame war.

But really, thanks for proving even more evidence of what it is you are after. It makes the point, without my having to.

[Godebert]

I oppose AWB, I favor killing terroists. At this point in time B overwhelms A.

You said it. How else can this statement be construed other than you think it's necessary for us to surrender our 2nd Amendment rights in order to combat terrorism? I'll say it again.....you are Un-American. Go back to watching you're sitcoms.

[jwalsh07]

You said it. How else can this statement be construed other than you think it's necessary for us to surrender our 2nd Amendment rights in order to combat terrorism? I'll say it again.....you are Un-American. Go back to watching you're sitcoms.

This may pass for Constitutional debate in assholeland, in my neck of the woods it's weak to say the least.

[Godebert]

That was my original post to your anti-gun and Un-American diatribe. I then asked you if you thought the AWB was Constitutional to which you never answered. Answer the question and then I'll be willing to move on to other topics. Like I said before....calling me an asshole does little to advance your arguement that to fight terrorism we must surrender our 2nd Amendment rights. Feinstien and Schumer would be proud of you, though.

[Woahhs]

As for my religion, I don't think I mention anything about that ..

It was a metaphor Mo...

It means: if you're going to claim association with a particular group, you shouldn't be ashamed of what defines that group...especially before its enemies.

I don't know what you mean about breaking laws and spinning your words. How 'bout some examples?

[jwalsh07]

Calling an asshole an asshole is as honest as it gets. You didn't ask squat, you called me UnAmerican and anit second Amendment which I'm clearly not.

I have stated unambigously that I am opposed to the AWB, that Americans should have the right to own "assault weapons" if they so please. The second amendment is clear about that.

But that's not good enough for assholes like yourself.

So now I get to ask you a question. Which do you place a greater priority on, the lives of your fellow Americans or cheaper mags and a hundred bucks less for an AK or SKS?

And before you try to evade,it's a choice, and either or. I don't want to hear any crap about how you don't have to sacrifice your liberty for the lives of your fellow Americans. The AWB as constituted simply makes product more expensive and I want to know how many American Lives equals an extra 30 bucks for a 30 round mag in your world.

[dcwusmc]

John, the BEST way to combat terrorism, indeed the only CONSTITUTIONAL way, is by FULL ENFORCEMENT of the Bill of Rights (and the whole Constitution, for that matter). The BEDROCK of the BoR is 2A. That ANYONE could conceive, even for a NANOSECOND, of compromising it for some perceived POLITICAL gain is beyond the pale. And this is, in fact, a NO-WIN for dubya, as NO ONE who is in favor of such a thing would switch allegiance to him for it... they have OTHER gun-grabbers... and he WILL lose the support of gun-OWNERS behing it. If he thinks otherwise he is deluded. And he is a one-termer, just like daddy... and for the same reason.

I know it feels good to look at the Oval Office and say that's MY guy there. And I know you want more of the same. But at what cost to the country and the Constitution? Sure, dubya has done a bit of good. HOWEVER, in floating this balloon, he has shot himself in the foot. And no rationalization can change that fact. His ONLY option, if he wants to continue residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue after January 20, 2005, is to IMMEDIATELY apologize to gun owners and reverse this course. Otherwise, he has lost the support that put him there and has gained NO NEW SUPPORT that would KEEP him there. Sorry, John, that's the way it is.

[Godebert]

You still haven't answered my first question. Is the AWB Constitutional or not? If you don't want folks calling you un-American....then be an American and defend the Constitution instead of attacking it.

[Godebert]

"I don't want to hear any crap about how you don't have to sacrifice your liberty for the lives of your fellow Americans."

I still can't believe you actually said that.

[jwalsh07]

I still can't believe you actually said that.

Well, once you suspend your disbelief, could you attempt an answer at the question I posed?

And since you seem to be incapable of reading no less comprehension, let me repeat, I the AWB is imo unconstitutional which is why I oppose it. Comprende'?

[jwalsh07]

If we let this stand, we are one step and one Democratic administration closer to a full ban, which will be coming one day.

For the umpteenth time, I oppose the AWB and my Congressman and my President are well aware of that fact.

Either way, this debate is meaningless. Rove cannot fail to see what a bad move getting this passed would be. This has to be Rove telling us to kill it in the House ourselves, whcih should be no biggie. Hell even most democrats will probably not vote for it.

That's astute because that is exactly what this is all about. It is a heads up to kill it in the house because Bush is on record from 2000 as supporting it and will sign it if it gets to his desk. I voted for him the first time knowing he supported it and whoever else voted for him did also. Those that didn't because of AWB won't again either.

Of course I still think we should point out to Rove on here how bad an idea supporting it would be.

Rove is a smart guy, he knows that gun owners are opposed to the AWB. It's what this float is all about. If he kills it in the House, it's win win. If not Bush will sign. Those are the political realities. It would be untenable for him to change his position and veto.

The question here is will his signing of that bill and his signing of the CFR bill, which also was Unconstitutional change the way we vote.

It won't for me because I think he has been magnificent as CIC, done well at cutting taxes and he has been the most pro life President in my time.

He has also directed his AG to argue that the RTKABA is an individual right which gets points with me.

You guys may differ, that's fine, but though the AWB as constituted is unconstitutional in my book, it's effect as constituted is mostly to raise prices. In the short term I am willing to pay more money for more dead terrorists who can no longer kill Americans. I watched for twenty years as Americans were murdered around the world with impunity and now I have a President who kills the killers before they get that chance. I'll be sticking with him.

Regards.

[miloklancy]

There is no need to be disrespectful about this. There is a difference of opinion here and it's not that I stated my opinion in the worst possible way. Like it or not there are times to pursue issues of personal freedom and times that are not so appropriate. I wrangled about this issue over the weekend with my brother, but there are other outstanding issues relating to personal freedoms out there. The fight to set the Second Ammendment in stone is not the only one. There is that disgraceful McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law. There is the criminalization of marijuana, which is largely an outmoded cultural aversion that ties up law enforcement resources that could best be used at going after hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc, as well as better guarding our borders and providing more effective homeland security. There is Affirmative Action. The list goes on and on. At some point you have focus your energies on what is attainable. Doing away with the Assault Weapon's Ban can best be done after Bush gets a second term.

[jjm2111]

The KABA poll is far from scientific. However, if an extension or permanancy bill crosses the Prez's desk, and he signs it, I'm voting for the Democrat. Not even Libertarian or something. I'll vote for Hillary if I have to.

[bybybill]

Don`t mean to show any disrespect, But are you a lawyer? On what grounds is the AWB unconstitutional. Please,don`t cite the 2nd amd., the Supremes have already stated that governments can place restrictions on ownership.

[jwalsh07]

The meaning of the second amendment is clear to me. The militithose weapons were a was outfitted with the "assault weapons" of the day in the 1700's. The second clearly states that the right to those weapons was an unalienable right not to be infringed. The 14th Amendment applies the BOR to the states. Constitutionally, the states can no more deny the right to keep the individual soldiers weapon out of the public hands than they can to enslave a segment of the population.

That's the clear meaning of the second and the 14th applies it to the states. The second would give the states the right to regulate those weapons with a liberal reading of the second but banning is an entirely different matter whether you read the Constitution liberally or conservatively.

And no I'm not a lawyer, I'm a blue collar guy so my opinions are just that.