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

Skip to comments.

Turn Your RNC Donation Letter into a Demand to Allow the AW Ban to Expire (ctext)
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78587&highlight=politicians ^ | 06/27/2003 | NYPatriot

Posted on 06/27/2003 5:03:35 PM PDT by thorshammer

With the 04 elections right around the corner, I'm sure many of us are receiving donation letters from the Republican National Committee, asking us for our hard-earned money in order to stave off the Democrat onslaught.

This is all fine & good, except for one thing... with Pres. Bush's stance on the AW ban, and without any real assurances from Republican lawmakers that the ban will be allowed to wither away & die, I'm not really in the giving mood!

Thus, when I received a letter in today's mail from the RNC's Treasurer Mike Retzer, I decided to enclose a friendly little note, rather than the check that I usually stuff into the postage paid envelope that they send...

quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Retzer,

I am enclosing this note to inform you that I will not be donating anymore money to President Bush’s, or any other Republican’s election fund until America’s gun owners receive a public assurance that the so called "Assault Weapons" ban will be allowed to expire without renewal or replacement come September of 2004.

The Republican Party currently controls the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, in large part, due to the support and efforts of the gun owning public. Any reauthorization of the blatantly unconstitutional "Assault Weapons" ban by Republican lawmakers will be viewed as a betrayal of our God given rights, and as a selling out of the Republican Party’s ideals and core constituency.

As a life long Republican and former financial contributor to the RNC, I sincerely hope that President Bush reconsiders his support of a renewed "Assault Weapons" ban. I also ask that all Republican lawmakers be put on notice that how they handle this matter will greatly effect the future voting and donating habits of many Americans who have, heretofore, considered themselves loyal Republicans.

Yours truly,

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


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters
KEYWORDS: assaultweaponban; aw; ban; banglist; rnc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last
I'm with NYPatriot, it's time for them to take action and I feel this will get their attention. This is what they will received from me also.
1 posted on 06/27/2003 5:03:36 PM PDT by thorshammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list; AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; ...
Great idea. What I've been doing for a while is simply writing across the form "ALLOW THE 1994 ASSAULT WEAPON BAN TO SUNSET, THEN WE'LL TALK". Then it goes back on their prepaid dime. I have yet to get a response back. $:-)


2 posted on 06/27/2003 5:08:21 PM PDT by Joe Brower ("The free man cannot be long an ignorant man." -- William McKinley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
I usually send money to them twice a year but about a month ago I sent them back a note saying that the second payment went to the NRA instead of them so they should go get it from them.
3 posted on 06/27/2003 5:10:47 PM PDT by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
Great idea! I believe I'll follow your lead.
4 posted on 06/27/2003 5:11:03 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
Too little too late. It ain't happening because there is little support for it.

People still have their guns and don't really want assault weapons in their closet. I expect it to be renewed, possibly with some amendments. They will be lucky to keep handguns out of it.

5 posted on 06/27/2003 5:12:00 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
What I've been doing for a while is simply writing across the form "ALLOW THE 1994 ASSAULT WEAPON BAN TO SUNSET, THEN WE'LL TALK". Then it goes back on their prepaid dime. I have yet to get a response back.

I have used similar tactics for years- usually about lowering taxes, slashing regulations, drilling for oil like crazy, and going to nuclear power- but I'll use the AW ban in the next batch I get...

6 posted on 06/27/2003 5:12:33 PM PDT by backhoe (Just an old keyboard cowboy, ridin' the trackball into the sunset...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
I wish I'd thought of that. I just threw mine in the trash.
7 posted on 06/27/2003 5:12:48 PM PDT by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
And then they can wonder why they will lose the midwest.
8 posted on 06/27/2003 5:13:27 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Say Hey! Hey! Damn Yankee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
It 's a tough political decision, but not the toughest Bush has faced. he has taken a stand on many hot issues for the conservative electorate.

I see no reason to trash him if he signs a renewal on that particular bill. Most folks just are not interested in it, and that includes gun owners. feds have a right, (according to the nine) to regulate commerce. This bill falls into that niche and most people accept it.

Those are the facts, not necessarily my opinion but I just cannot seen to get excited enough about it to make it an issue for re-election.

There are too many other issues that are more pressing now.

9 posted on 06/27/2003 5:22:05 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer; kristinn; Clinton's a liar; ironman; dbwz; technochick99; basil; PistolPaknMama; ...
That rules!
10 posted on 06/27/2003 5:22:31 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (There be no shelter here; the front line is everywhere!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
This time, the ban could be permanent (subject to repeal by a future congress and presidency, of course) and more comprehensive in scope.
11 posted on 06/27/2003 5:23:55 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (There be no shelter here; the front line is everywhere!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It is the comprehensive part I worry about. Not the ban.

A AR15 is a nice plinker, but it is limited in it's uses.

Sure don't need a mini or streetsweeper.

I think most people feel that way and that is why it passed to begin with. I would be opposed to adding guns that are not purely designed to kill two legged game, and they better not mess with currently legal handguns or some damn insurance pool that I heard someone advocate.

I will be all over their butts.

12 posted on 06/27/2003 5:34:18 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
Personally, I'd donate to county organizations. They need the money a lot more than the RNC (of course people will have to use their own judgment on individual county organizations and their worth).
13 posted on 06/27/2003 5:36:09 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat (Help us elect Republicans in Kentucky! Click on my name for links to all the 2003 candidates!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
I see no reason to trash him if he signs a renewal on that particular bill. Most folks just are not interested in it, and that includes gun owners. feds have a right, (according to the nine) to regulate commerce. This bill falls into that niche and most people accept it.

Well I do. It's my litmus test issue. The feds have no rights, only powers. There power to regulate interstate commerce is restricted by the command not to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Amendments are like that, they change the original document. Besides, most of what they do under "regulation" of interstate commerce is really restriction of interstate commerce, and that they have no power to do. "Regulate", in this context, meant and still means, to make function properly and the power was included to keep the states from restricting commerce, not to allow the federal government to do so. I don't really give a flip what the 9 say about something I can read and understand for myself. It's not as if the Constitution is full of legalize, although there is a bit, not much but some, of language that is not in common useage today.

14 posted on 06/27/2003 6:39:27 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
I send mine back-- seems like I get one every week-- with words to the effect that Bush has not been in any way the veteran-friendly president he seemed to suggest he would be in the campaign. This state has a lot of veterans he has screwed and a lot more in the making. He won the state the last time by a small margin. If he doesn't shape up, we will be shipping him out.
15 posted on 06/27/2003 6:46:39 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
I disagree, the very first day after GW's comments the White House received over 10,000 emails. This is going to be a real fight.

They do want to renew it and make amendments. Good God they just showed where they want to ban Potato Gun's. Give me a break.

With the sunset, before the elections, make your intentions known and be loud about it. NO AW PERIOD! Let it die the death it deserves.
16 posted on 06/27/2003 7:03:51 PM PDT by thorshammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
I have yet to get a response back. $:-)

They just want your money not your input.

When we get our letters of begging for more money I just take the return already paid postage seal it empty and send it back.

These lying politicians are all the same they don't want anything from you but your easy come easy go donations.

I'm through with all of them since I do not count for anything but what they can squeeze out of me with their fake make you feel guilty plea!

They live in a different world from ours, the real world.

They, like the religious beggars, care not for you as an individual only what and how much they can screw you out of.

To hell with all those who fit this pattern and they are legion.

17 posted on 06/27/2003 7:10:17 PM PDT by VOYAGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
As I said, I would be against adding a bunch of useless crap and will fight it, but the political reality is that the law will likely be renewed.

The support was strong for the original vote and I do not think that has changed.

Bush will have to decide if he wants to give the rats a big election issue or tick off a few conservative gun owners.

From the statements I have seen on the forum recently, those ticked off conservatives took or threatened to take that vote away prior to this issue.

I will give him the right to make that call and it won't hurt my feelings a bit. I just don't see the importance of fighting this politically.

The main problem is the term "assault weapon".

18 posted on 06/27/2003 7:14:06 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
This time, the ban could be permanent (subject to repeal by a future congress and presidency, of course) and more comprehensive in scope.

Not just "could", but rather "would". The milder Senate version of the "renewal" makes it permanent. It also bans importation of full capacity magazines, regardless of when manufactured. (a wee loophole you understand).

The House version also makes it permanent and greatly increases the number of weapons banned, by reducing from two to one the number of "bad" features allowed. If that passes, say bye bye to any removeable magagine semi-auto with a pistol grip, and that's very strictly defined so as to possibly include a pistol grip stock that is common on many rifles and most definitley includes a thumbhole type stock. Plus it add's several guns by name, such as the M-1 Carbine, and the Mini-14. Of course the idiots didn't include the M-1A or the Mini-30, because they are not only Constitutionally challenged, they are just plain dumb. Heres' the House version's "By name" list.

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

19 posted on 06/27/2003 7:14:39 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VOYAGER
LOL! Not very cynical are you?
20 posted on 06/27/2003 7:15:50 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Good idea. I get a couple of requests a month.
21 posted on 06/27/2003 7:22:59 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
until America’s gun owners receive a public assurance that the so called "Assault Weapons" ban will be allowed to expire without renewal or replacement come September of 2004.

A public assurance. That is not good enough, I will NOT donate until it has expired, and maybe not then. If there is any chance McCain will get one cent of what I donate, it won't happen.

22 posted on 06/27/2003 7:29:38 PM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zip
ping!
23 posted on 06/27/2003 7:31:11 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
And then they can wonder why they will lose the midwest.

To who?

24 posted on 06/27/2003 7:32:47 PM PDT by ErnBatavia (Bumperootus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
I would be opposed to adding guns that are not purely designed to kill two legged game, and they better not mess with currently legal handguns or some damn insurance pool that I heard someone advocate.

I will be all over their butts.

Then you ought to be on their butts now, not after they pass the thing, here's the House versions handgun ban language.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

Let's see, the (F)(iv) language bans most Olympic style target pistols.

The bill is HR 2038 (That's the GPOs PDF file)

They added the AR-15, and the Bushmaster XM-15, plus an Olymic Arms version. Since lots of folks compete with those weapon, I don't think you can say they are "purely designed to kill two legged game". There really is no such thing anyway.

25 posted on 06/27/2003 7:34:21 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia
To the DEMS. Why? Cause those union members will vote dem if the GOP'ers is anti-gun..dem workin' man...
26 posted on 06/27/2003 7:34:45 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Say Hey! Hey! Damn Yankee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
I disagree, respectfully. The Republican Party is the party of the gun owner. The fact that we have a few whack job gun control nuts in the Party is not worrisome. I support the Republican Party, as a former Democrat, I know that the party of Algore and TheBentOne is not a party of friendship to the gun owner.
27 posted on 06/27/2003 7:38:25 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
Sure don't need a mini or streetsweeper.

The last time I checked it was the "Bill of Rights," not the bill of needs.

I would be opposed to adding guns that are not purely designed to kill two legged game

What part of "Shall not be infringed," do you not understand?

You obviously don't understand incrementalism.

28 posted on 06/27/2003 7:39:36 PM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
I see no reason to trash him if he signs a renewal on that particular bill.

If he can not trust you with the firearm of your choice, how can you trust him with your freedom?

29 posted on 06/27/2003 7:42:30 PM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
BTTT!
30 posted on 06/27/2003 7:45:04 PM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I sympathize in part with your feelings about the fed's irrational actions regarding this stuff, but the facts are that these companies are marketing a gun that makes the average joe shake his head and say "what the heck would anyone need that for!"

As to the competition angle, that fact just doesn't mitigate the purpose of the device that they are selling and it causes people to be highly skeptical of the motives of the pro gun lobby.

It is a emotional issue and it really doesn't make much sense, but the reality is the emotion.

I just don't think that beating your head up against that brick wall is helping the gun issue with the average non gunner or recreational hunter.

I see your point, believe me. And I hope you understand why I sense that this fight may cause more of a rift between people on both sides of this issue.

31 posted on 06/27/2003 7:47:44 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All
Ok folks, here we go with the fun and games.

I am hitting the sack. Have a good night.

32 posted on 06/27/2003 7:50:08 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
#27 pretty much says what I meant...The Union thing is a "blue duck" as my Aussie buddies categorize such things as 'past history'....they may have their leadership goons, but the lads have learned that there's a curtain when they punch the ballot.

Not to worry.

PS - neighbor lady (quite elderly) is flying out to Michigan over the weekend; anything below the 118 degrees we hit today would be mucho appreciado, on her behalf....it was so hot today that the BBQ preheat only took half the time, since the Weber thermo started at 160 degrees on the interior of the lid.

33 posted on 06/27/2003 7:55:02 PM PDT by ErnBatavia (Bumperootus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
"The Republican Party is the party of the gun owner"

We will see in 2004, that is for sure!!!
34 posted on 06/27/2003 7:57:17 PM PDT by thorshammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia
""118 degrees we hit today"""

I think 104 is the hottest I've ever seen here, although the humidity is worse here than the Mojave Desert.

We complain in Michigan when it hits 90.(ducking) :)

35 posted on 06/27/2003 8:07:32 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Say Hey! Hey! Damn Yankee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer; Joe Brower
BUMP

36 posted on 06/27/2003 8:14:40 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
I began getting pleas for moey from the RNC months ago.

I responded very much as posted, and will continue to do so until they publicly commit to killing the ban.

One difference, I do continue to suppoert those who have had the guts to already take a stand in favor of our RKBA, such as Jim Gibbons (R-NV.).
37 posted on 06/27/2003 8:15:05 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
You need to understand how the Fed. has twisted the meaning of the interstate commerce clause beyond all recognition from it's original intent!

In reality the ICC has nothing to do with the AW ban, it's just a pretext for the necessary power grab.

Since Swinestien & crew have put in bills that greatly expand the scope of the ban MANY more gun owners than before are now VERY interested in seeing it die.
38 posted on 06/27/2003 8:20:06 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
"what the heck would anyone need that for!"

Because they are fun to shoot!

Rep or Dem, you mess with AW Ban, you are gone, Period!! Let that be the message.

"It is a emotional issue and it really doesn't make much sense, but the reality is the emotion."

Your damn it is, highly charged and I'm shouting it out loud. Respectfully, it makes a lot of sense. One more liberty taken away, where does it stop?

Well, with me, it stops right here.

"I just don't think that beating your head up against that brick wall is helping the gun issue with the average non gunner or recreational hunter."

I'm not beating my head against anything. Since 9/11, gun sale's have skyrocketed. People now know that the government can not/will not protect them.

You can carry a weapon in Alaska or Vermont without any restrictions at all. No government interference. It sould be that way in all of America. What ever your flavor!
39 posted on 06/27/2003 8:25:55 PM PDT by thorshammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: wirestripper
You should remember a couple of things.

The ban took several attempts before it was finally passed by the slimmest of margins.

The ban would have failed in '94 without the "sunset" provision.

The "sunset" provision was a cynical ploy to allow legislators to have it both ways and duck responsibility for their vote. The claim was that it was only temporary and that if it did not result in a substantial decrease in crime it would be allowed to sunset.
Anyone who is familiar with the facts knows that "AW's" never were commonly used in crime, so a substantial reduction in crime being due to the ban is impossible.

Even Bubba Klintoon lamented how many D's he lost in comngress as a result of the AW ban's passage.
Gun owners are one of the strongest voting blocks in the country!

These "sunset" provisions are vile things when they are used to excuse trashing the constitution, we need to send a clear message that we will no longer tolerate this sort of cynical abuse from our elected officials.
41 posted on 06/27/2003 8:33:17 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
"Assault Weapon" as used in the ban legislation is a pejorative based on a convienent political fiction, it has no basis in reality!

One of the Klintoon/HCI stooges noticed that most non-gunowners could not tell the difference between a semi and full-auto military appearing gun. The seditionist conspiring to destroy our RKBA and traditional America siezed on this to create their AW myth.

The proper term would now be "Homeland Defense" weapons.
42 posted on 06/27/2003 8:38:29 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
"Sure don't need a mini or streetsweeper."

However, it ain't called "the Bill of Needs."

43 posted on 06/27/2003 8:44:59 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
I use my "AW's" to hunt.

MANY of the guns on the AW list make very fine hunting rifles, nearly all are excellent plinking guns.

Perhaps you also accept ATF's transparently irrational (and clearly an illicit lobbbying effort) determination that "Plinking" is NOT a Sport?

Killing off the ban is only a small step toward recovering our constituional rights.
44 posted on 06/27/2003 8:46:57 PM PDT by Richard-SIA (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
"The Republican Party is the party of the gun owner."

True. They have been selling out our gun rights in exchange for their own power at a significantly slower rate than the democrats.
45 posted on 06/27/2003 8:47:08 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
Desires aren't needs, needs aren't rights.


Whatever guns I own is not dependent on what guns you own any more than the color of the car you have or, as you seem to think, what guns you think I should own.
46 posted on 06/27/2003 9:10:20 PM PDT by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
We complain in Michigan when it hits 90.(ducking) :)

No ducking required...having spent a Fourth of July in the St. Cloud Minnesota area, when it hit the very high 90's, I can commiserate; sitting on the curb waiting for the parade was not a pleasant experience.....humidity sucks once you get to the upper 80's.

We have, given all, that "DRY HEAT" here. But get over 110 and it's head for the house time, and hope Gray Davis doesn't pull the electricity plug, because the A/C is going to be cranking.

47 posted on 06/27/2003 9:13:01 PM PDT by ErnBatavia (Bumperootus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
RNC or NRA? Tough choice, but. . .


48 posted on 06/27/2003 11:07:17 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thorshammer
What is "(ctext)"?
49 posted on 06/28/2003 1:09:44 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't think for myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Thanks, I am busy through week & your list is handy-i'll send it around, after I look for more such info.

The Republicrats have several prob's like this-the criminal invasion of illegals, the brand new ( & largest entitlement in history ) Medicare drugs for my already wealthy parents, etc.
50 posted on 06/28/2003 2:39:07 AM PDT by GatekeeperBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last

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