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

Skip to comments.

Clear target of the assault weapon law
The Washington Times ^ | May 12, 2003 | Jacob Sullum

Posted on 05/12/2003 12:14:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:03:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

"The most critical improvement" to the federal "assault weapon" ban, according to the Violence Policy Center, "is to ensure that the term 'assault weapon' includes all guns that are, in fact, assault weapons." Don't think about that assertion too much; it might cause your head to explode.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: awb; bang; banglist

1 posted on 05/12/2003 12:15:00 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The AWB renewal is DOA because Tom Delay will do his job.
2 posted on 05/12/2003 12:18:46 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
From semi-auto AK style military rifles....
To bolt-action 50 cal "sniper rifles"...
To 308 & 30-06 call-them-siper-rifles.
In roughly that order.

Whaddyabet?
3 posted on 05/12/2003 12:21:42 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (California! See how low WE can go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
What's an Asphalt Weapon?
4 posted on 05/12/2003 12:24:46 PM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Smokers are people too, most are good people. But Will Rogers never met me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bang_list
bang
5 posted on 05/12/2003 12:26:19 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The AWB renewal is DOA because Tom Delay will do his job.

Good to hear that the Hammer is on the people's side, but what about the President? If the Senate passes the bill, and the President is on the record as being in favor of it, will he pressure the House to do his bidding? Where does Hassert stand?

6 posted on 05/12/2003 12:27:15 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Good to hear that the Hammer is on the people's side, but what about the President?

What is your objective?

To see the AWB die?

Or to have Bush et al beat their chests and bellow "Constitution... Second Amendment... Founding Fathers?"

You can't have both.

Once Bush et al show their hand the DemoncRATS have a clear field of fire.

7 posted on 05/12/2003 12:39:05 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
What is your objective?

A federal government that adheres to the Constitution. Officers in that government that respect their solemn oath to defend and protect same, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

To see the AWB die?

As an unconstitutional vehicle for the government to oppress the citizenry, yes, I want it to die. I also want a president tossing shovel fulls of dirt on it, not promising to sign it should it be renewed.

Or to have Bush et al beat their chests and bellow "Constitution... Second Amendment... Founding Fathers?"

Yeah, chest beaters like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, what did they ever accomplish... You think Bush is going to further a policy of killing of the AWB by advocating his personal support for it?

You can't have both.

I disagree.

Once Bush et al show their hand the DemoncRATS have a clear field of fire.

Bush is on record as saying he'll sign the bill. As with the CFR he's abdicating his responsibility. Is he trying to complete a 4 year term without ever using a veto? Where does Hassert stand? Is the Speaker of the House for or against the bill, seeing as how the House of Representatives remains the only component of government between the bill dying or being renewed?

8 posted on 05/12/2003 12:56:18 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Gunslingr3
You can't have both.

I disagree.

I hadn't realized you were an experienced legislator.

How long have you been in politics?

What offices have you won?

What legislation have you gotten passed?

What legislation have you defeated?

10 posted on 05/12/2003 1:01:19 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Joe Whitey
How often has the House or Senate been controlled by the same party as the President and either refuses to get major legislation that he supports to his desk so that he can sign it?

When you see Bush lobbying for the AWB renewal to hit his desk, you let me know.

Politics is a game. Those who don't know that continually lose and wonder why.

And those who think politics is a religion are idolators.

12 posted on 05/12/2003 1:11:34 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Joe Whitey
What a lame response. It will get to his desk, and he will sign it just like he said.

And Tom Delay is just Bush's servant, doing his bidding? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that Tom Delay is a liar?

The President is not in the legislative branch, in case you had not heard.

14 posted on 05/12/2003 1:27:01 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
When you see Bush lobbying for the AWB renewal to hit his desk

The simple act of saying he not only will sign it, but that he supports it, and sending not one, but two of his minions out to do so, certainly isn't lobbying against the bill, nor is it keeping your yap shut and the gun grabbers guessing.

15 posted on 05/12/2003 1:33:13 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Joe Whitey
He's a politician.

If no poliitician is to be trusted, then why are we having this discussion? Shouldn't you be fomenting an armed revolution or something?

17 posted on 05/12/2003 2:05:48 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
I hadn't realized you were an experienced legislator.

What you haven't realized could fill a lot of books, but that's also beside the point.

How long have you been in politics?

Since I was 18

What offices have you won?

All the ones I've run for.

What legislation have you gotten passed?

All the ones I've put forward.

What legislation have you defeated?

All that I've voted against.

Now, having (temporarily I'm sure), put aside your distractions, do you know whether or not the Speaker of the House supports this legislation?

18 posted on 05/12/2003 2:05:58 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
In other words, you know nothing about politics except WHAT YOU WANT, just like a two year old.

Get lost.
19 posted on 05/12/2003 2:08:40 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"Tom Delay will do his job."

I hope so, because Bush doesn't seem like he's got the guts to step up on this issue.

20 posted on 05/12/2003 2:12:19 PM PDT by newwahoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
In other words, you know nothing about politics except WHAT YOU WANT, just like a two year old. Get lost.

More distraction, this time by personally denigrating me. It's a simple question: Do you know if the Speaker of the House is in favor or opposed to the Assault Weapon Ban?

21 posted on 05/12/2003 3:32:01 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: newwahoo
I hope so, because Bush doesn't seem like he's got the guts to step up on this issue.

What is your objective?

To see the AWB die?

Or to have Bush et al beat their chests and bellow "Constitution... Second Amendment... Founding Fathers?"

You can't have both.

Once Bush et al show their hand the DemoncRATS have a clear field of fire.

All that has to happen for the AWB to die is for the House to ignore it. Considering the thousands of bills introduced each session and the small number that actually pass, it ain't rocket science to figure out that most bills shrivel up and blow away.

If you notice, the New York Times hasn't mentioned that Delay is going to block it.

They want to get dim-witted conservatives riled up, and they are succeeding.

22 posted on 05/12/2003 3:49:27 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Do you know if the Speaker of the House is in favor or opposed to the Assault Weapon Ban?

Knowing Hastert he has probably said something like whatever Bush's SPOKESMAN said for political purposes, but that does not mean he is going to bring the bill up.

Have you noticed the the mainstream press has not breathed a word about Delay blocing AWB? They want to get dim-witted "conservatives" like you riled up so they can divide-and-conquer. They sure have your number.

23 posted on 05/12/2003 3:56:15 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Knowing Hastert he has probably said something like whatever Bush's SPOKESMAN said for political purposes, but that does not mean he is going to bring the bill up. Have you noticed the the mainstream press has not breathed a word about Delay blocing AWB? They want to get dim-witted "conservatives" like you riled up so they can divide-and-conquer. They sure have your number.

More personal attacks against a person you've never met. The civility of those shielded by the anonymity the internet provides never ceases to amaze me. You could have saved yourself a lot of consternation by simply telling me you didn't know if the Speaker of the House supports the bill.

24 posted on 05/12/2003 4:04:38 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I'm glad that President Dubya has come out boldly against the Constitution again.../sarcasm
25 posted on 05/12/2003 4:06:11 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
You could have saved yourself a lot of consternation by simply telling me you didn't know if the Speaker of the House supports the bill.

No consternation. I know enough about politics to know that you don't pay any attention to what people SAY, you pay attention to what they DO. If you weren't so busy beating your chest like an apeman you might figure that out yourself.

26 posted on 05/12/2003 4:10:56 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
I see you drew Mondays in the "Your turn to support more of Bush's un-Constitutional clap-trap, but only verbally - most of the time" sweepstakes...
27 posted on 05/12/2003 4:40:55 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
No consternation. I know enough about politics to know that you don't pay any attention to what people SAY, you pay attention to what they DO. If you weren't so busy beating your chest like an apeman you might figure that out yourself.

You don't know anything about me, pretending otherwise is foolish. Apeman? Another ad hominem, keep'em coming, I don't care they make you look silly, not me. What politicians do matters more than what they say. Don't think so? Read GHWB's lips.

From the link you kindly provided early: "Rove took my arm and literally got in my face, using the old drill sergeant intimidation trick of speaking through clenched teeth with his nose an inch from mine. It didn't work, because I'm taller (and older, and uglier) than he is, and I took HIS arm in turn. He told me that Bush was sticking to his position, but that Congress would never pass the legislation. I told him that there were a lot of us, that we were dead serious, and that if Bush let the ban get renewed he'd lose the election, because freedom is more important than politics."

Alienate that constituency at your peril, as the Democratic controlled Congress learned...

28 posted on 05/12/2003 4:49:15 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
GW is playing this the same way he played CFR.
He'll sign it if it gets to him. It would be too diffisive not too. And we can't have that now can we?
29 posted on 05/12/2003 5:00:45 PM PDT by Area51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
What's an Asphalt Weapon?


30 posted on 05/12/2003 5:03:17 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"All that has to happen for the AWB to die is for the House to ignore it"

You'd better hope so. Right now IMHO the president's failure to make a stand is encouraging the dims to try and EXPAND the AWB. I'd just like to see a guy that is riding high in the polls make a principled stand on an issue that is very important to his base.

31 posted on 05/12/2003 7:11:01 PM PDT by newwahoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: newwahoo
I'd just like to see a guy that is riding high in the polls make a principled stand on an issue that is very important to his base.

Okay, I will try one more time.

When he signed the AWB, did Bill Clinton say "This is a great day in the advancement toward a totalitarian peoples' paradase?"

No, because that would have alarmed the brain-dead third of voters who know so little they can swing one way or the other depending upon which episode of Howdy Doody they watched this morning.

In like manner, if Bush says "We must bury the AWB in the name of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and Patrick Henry," the same brain-dead one-third of the American electorate will flee in the opposite direction in abject terror.

DemoncRATS pass stealth legislation to get their way. We can stealthily let the AWB die, or we can give the DemoncRATS an issue they can use to stir up the brain-dead masses to vote for Hillary in 2004.

Can you guess what kind of replacement for the AWB Hillary will come up with?

I have made an honest attempt to explain how the process works and why you cannot always tip your hand by making pious prounouncements. The goal here is to sunset the AWB, and that can happen easy as pie because Tom Delay can be trusted to do his job, UNLESS the AWB pops up on Joe Brain-Dead's radar screen because knee-jerk "conservatives" demanded that Bush make a pious, "principled stand on an issue that is very important to his base."

If you still don't get it, please just leave me alone.

32 posted on 05/12/2003 8:10:44 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
I've got no problem with a stealth attempt to sunset the AWB. If thats the plan the prez should have just said nothing. Now the dims will take his pro-AWB stance and run to the next first down marker with it. All while GWB depresses his faithful with his statement.

If you want to work quietly behind the scenes to kill something thats fine. Just do it quietly. Making the front page of the NYT in support of it doesn't qualify as "stealth" to me. Now Maloney et al are going to push towards their next objective.

33 posted on 05/12/2003 10:06:18 PM PDT by newwahoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
Why do they want those banned? Looks cool!
34 posted on 05/13/2003 5:17:37 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Smokers are people too, most are good people. But Will Rogers never met me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: newwahoo
If thats the plan the prez should have just said nothing.

Bush didn't say anything. Ari Fleischer floated a cover statement to the effect that the President supported renewing AWB. That's the way it's done. The statement defuses the situation for the President by removing him as a target. Bush has not and will not lobby for Congress to send him a bill.

All that has to happen is for the House to ignore Feinstein's renewal bill and the job is done. Everybody knows that the Republican tsunami of 1994 was a direct result of passage of the original AWB. The House was especially hard hit, if you remember. The House is not going to touch this bill. They know all too well the consequences of doing so, especially the DemoncRATS.

Do you ever watch Jay Leno's "man-on-the-street" segments where people don't even know who the vice-president is or how many states there are in the United States? It is astounding how stupid the average person is, even ones who are supposedly educated. Those people vote, and there are so many of them that it is they who determine the results of national elections, not the broken-glass Republicans and DemoncRATS. Strong rhetoric and real issues confuse and frighten these people. If you are careful not to trouble their tiny little minds you can get their vote, but if you shake them up they will run in the opposite direction. We are trying not to frighten these people. That is the name of the game.

35 posted on 05/13/2003 6:22:24 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: newwahoo
Making the front page of the NYT in support of it doesn't qualify as "stealth" to me. Now Maloney et al are going to push towards their next objective.

The New York Times is trying to cause division in Republican ranks. They decide what to put on their front page, not Bush.

If you notice, they haven't mentioned the fact the Tom Delay says the AWB renewal is DOA, have they? They don't want knee-jerk Republicans to calm down. They want them to be riled up and bolt to the Libertarian Party or vote for Ross Perot or anything that allows Hillary to win in 2004.

36 posted on 05/13/2003 6:32:05 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
But it ain't full automatic! I see an operator on it! Great sense of humor we need more like you around here in these troubling pre-revolution times.
37 posted on 05/13/2003 6:33:25 AM PDT by Howie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list; Tailgunner Joe

38 posted on 05/16/2003 5:35:23 AM PDT by Joe Brower (http://www.joebrower.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Yeah, chest beaters like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, what did they ever accomplish

Not much. Sam Adams was the master of a mob and considered pretty low by the rest of his family. He probably instigated the Boston Massacre, and was responsible for a good deal of counterproductive mob violence. His only purpose was to act as the "bad cop" for the voices of reason like his cousin John and the other thoughtful patriots of Boston.

Patrick Henry - as is not well known - after his famous outburst in the House of Burgesses apologized abjectly because he was afraid he was going to be charged with treason.

The firebrands provided the oratory, but it was the nuts and bolts workers like Adams and Washington and Morris and Hamilton and Madison that actually put the show together.

Something of the same sort is going on here. Ideological purity makes for grand flights of rhetoric, but clear thinking gets the goal accomplished. And the goal here is getting rid of the "AW"B.

39 posted on 05/16/2003 5:45:47 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
I'll take one Henry willing to raise a body of troops with his own funds over 10 Hamiltons wishing to erect a strong central government with a new king.
The nations descent into democracy and tyranny our direct consequence of the ignorance and placidity of the populace.
A free republic will not be restored by driving off the cliff more slowly (or more quickly, considering the rapacious appetite of our GOP Congress has demonstrated for spending money these last two years and handing power to the president). Bush is now on record supporting banning guns. If he puts his signature to a bill banning guns he'll do more damage to his party and the cause of freedom than he would by standing for freedom and explaining why to an American public that trusts him. I don't think the GOP benefits from masking it's intentions like the Democrats, it benefits from clearly elucidating them.
40 posted on 05/16/2003 7:56:13 AM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
We can stealthily let the AWB die, ...

We could have if the White House had remained silent. No one forced the Bush Administration to issue a statement.

41 posted on 05/16/2003 9:13:56 AM PDT by TigersEye ( The Democrats are sooooo 9/10.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
I'll grant you that Henry came around (after a disappointing start in the Revolutionary War) to be an excellent governor of Virginia. But Sam Adams as far as I am concerned was the equivalent of Al Sharpton - out there rabble rousing and getting people killed. (It's not his picture on the beer, by the way, it's Copley's portrait of Paul Revere, which has been altered several times over the life of the brand to look less like Paul and more like a generic modern American. It never looked like Sam. He was too ugly to sell beer with.)

We had counterbalance to Hamilton in Jefferson and Franklin and George Mason (my personal favorite). I don't imagine for a minute that Hamilton could have foreseen the fix we're in today. The Articles of Confederation had already proved a total failure when it came to running anything. . . . as it turned out the Constitution was the best workable plan at the time.

But if the Revolution had been left to the likes of Adams and Henry, it would never have gotten off the ground. Boston, New York, and maybe the Saratoga campaign would have been the end. Ideologues need counterweights to actually accomplish anything - they can lead the parade, but they can't do the grunt work.

42 posted on 05/16/2003 11:01:07 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
We could have if the White House had remained silent. No one forced the Bush Administration to issue a statement.

No one issued a statement. Ari Fleischer answered a question from a member of the White House press corps.

43 posted on 05/16/2003 12:30:43 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Ideologues need counterweights to actually accomplish anything - they can lead the parade, but they can't do the grunt work.

Would Jefferson, Franklin or Mason sign a bill banning guns? Would they agree to do so publicly? That's grunt work I'd rather see Republicans not trying to accomplish. If you want to argue that Jefferson, et al were less radical than Sam Adams in bringing the question of American independence and liberty to a head, congrats, but I knew that, and it's not germane to a discussion of what our president has put himself on record supporting. I honestly can't believe you tried to draw an analogy between Al Sharpton and Samuel Adams. Wasn't calling him ugly enough?

44 posted on 05/16/2003 1:31:23 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
This looks like a BW'ism. Follow the links back.
45 posted on 05/16/2003 1:35:00 PM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
This is a good article with a sad lack of good Freeper commentary.
46 posted on 05/16/2003 1:42:25 PM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
You show me how Sam Adams, fundamentally and in his time, was any different from Al Sharpton.

He led a gang composed of the criminals and ne'er do wells of Boston. They not only attacked British officials such as tax collectors, but also people they didn't like. Some died. He was seen at the gathering point for the mob that attacked the Custom House right before the Boston Massacre - one of the witnesses identified him, and John Adams suppressed the information in court because it would have complicated his theory of defense severely to drag Sam in. (John essentially argued that the soldiers at the Customs House were attacked by criminals, the scaff and raff of the docks, and argued that they were from "out of town". . . . Crispus Attucks was from Marblehead IIRC.)

This is precisely germane to the president's situation. Absolutists can make speeches and lead mobs, but they can neither pass nor block legislation in a representative government. They serve a valuable purpose as the "bad cop" to the pragmatists' "good cop", and that is all they do as far as legislation is concerned.

And, if you'll look up the thread, the president's press secretary was responding to a question from a reporter. If he said "no" it would have provided a rallying point for the Dems. "Yes" means nothing because the bill is DOA. I don't think Mason would say such a thing, but if Franklin thought it would gain him political points he would do it in a New York (or Philadelphia) minute - he was a wiley old politician. Jefferson, I don't know. He was very anti-Federalist, but on the other hand he said some pretty outrageous things at times, was inclined to speak his mind without thinking first.

I will concede that Sam Adams wasn't as ugly as Al Sharpton . . . physically.

47 posted on 05/16/2003 6:26:56 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
You show me how Sam Adams, fundamentally and in his time, was any different from Al Sharpton.

He was repeatedly elected by his constituents and argued on behalf of their freedom. All Sharpton has been elected to what? And argues that the federal government should be a tool for looting one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Your analogy is flawed and disengenuous. It relies on presenting a series of half truths. I know of the other half.

48 posted on 05/19/2003 9:48:33 AM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
OK, let's compare him to Billy McKinney instead. :-D

Sam was a professional rabble rouser. The post-Revolutionary rehabilitation of his reputation has been pretty successful. But it is still true that "after independence was declared his influence declined; the radical was replaced by more conservative leaders, who tended to look upon Adams as an irresponsible agitator." (from the americanrevolution.com website).

American Revolutionary leaders are not fungible; Adams was on the fringe. Now, fringe leaders serve a useful purpose in getting the ball rolling, there is no doubt. But they do get "replaced" as soon as gains have to be consolidated and actual working relationships established.

49 posted on 05/19/2003 10:02:07 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"...the VPC is now claiming that from 1998 through 2001 "one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon." ..."

I'll bet this includes the friendly fire incidents when cops kill other cops with their MP5s or M16s. It happened in a training incident near where I lived.
50 posted on 06/01/2003 11:54:11 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (NEO-COMmunistS should be identified as such.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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