Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: *bang_list
bang
To: conservativefromGa
Ban "military style" rifles? Heck, every American household should have one, IMHO.
4 posted on
03/06/2003 9:53:45 PM PST by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is slavery.)
To: conservativefromGa
When one of these anti-gun maggots can show me a gun that drove itself to a hold up or bank robbery and raised itself and killed an innocent person all by itself, I will agree that Guns need to be regulated, Until then, the criminals who break the laws of our land need to be legislated against, NOT THE GUNS
7 posted on
03/06/2003 9:57:07 PM PST by
MJY1288
(It's Time To Roll)
To: conservativefromGa
Ashcroft has been repeatedly strong on the Second Amendment. I always thought the ban addressed a REAL problem, as only 1/10th of one percent of all crimes were commited with the misnamed "assault" rifles.
Oh, happy day if this really gets killed! Go John, go!
To: conservativefromGa
Am I mortified!
Everyone knows that pistol grips on rifles are the most deadly feature ever incorporated in a long gun.
Surely the end of the world is at hand.
9 posted on
03/06/2003 9:59:10 PM PST by
mercy
To: conservativefromGa
The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educational organization working to stop gun death and injury in America.The Violence Policy Center is a virulent left-wing organization of liars and manipulators funded by a billionaire marxist working to villify all gun owners, confiscate their guns and ultimately cause grave injury to freedom in America.
11 posted on
03/06/2003 10:03:31 PM PST by
spodefly
(This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
To: conservativefromGa
Terrorist training manuals seized in Afghanistan have made clear that America's enemies recognize the nexus between our nation's weak gun laws and potential terrorist attacks. Oh really? The terrorists believe they will be safer with fewer US citizens with legally owned guns? Hardly....
12 posted on
03/06/2003 10:04:17 PM PST by
The Toad
To: conservativefromGa
Terrorist training manuals seized in Afghanistan have made clear that America's enemies recognize the nexus between our nation's weak gun laws and potential terrorist attacks.
This guy is kidding, right ? Notwithstanding I don't know what the heck it even means other than terrorists want us disarmed, didn't a Russian General say Russia was hesitant to be in a war with the U.S.A., not because of our military, but because of the number of private citizens posessing weapons ?
BUZZZZZZZZZZZ ! VPC...thanx for playing.
13 posted on
03/06/2003 10:04:45 PM PST by
stylin19a
(all in all - I'd rather be golfing)
To: conservativefromGa; Redcloak; joesnuffy
Stories about the same testimony with opposing interpretations
here and
here My own take is that the administration is playing chicken with the Republicans in congress to avoid having to use a veto: "You guys had better not let this renewal get to my desk or I might just sign it and then we'll both have to take the heat." The President is also up for renewal in the fall of 2004 and I'm sure that he would rather not have to deal with this topic.
To: conservativefromGa
Bump
To: conservativefromGa
To all Californians reading this:
We gotta dump this female dog Feistien.
Get active. Join CRPA and donate time and money.
Don't buy Levis or Hallmark cards.
17 posted on
03/06/2003 10:08:30 PM PST by
Blue Collar Christian
(Okie by proxy, raised by Yankees, temporarily Californian)
To: conservativefromGa
Years ago when I first heard of California's plan to ban semi-auto rifles(but they could find no reason to ban them) I told my neighbours "get ready! There is going to be a mass killing with an assault rifle somewhere in the US, probably in California".
3 months later the Stockton massacre happened and Cali banned the rifles.
Be ready. There will be a mass killing somewhere in the US before the ban expires. I can't help but believe that a "set-up" will be in place to keep the ban in effect or made worse.
18 posted on
03/06/2003 10:12:11 PM PST by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(When someone burns a cross on your lawn the best firehose is an AK-47.)
To: conservativefromGa
I will believe it when I see it. And if the war goes badly and the economy tanks, we may be seeing President Hillary and Attorney General Schumer in two years. Then all bets are off.
19 posted on
03/06/2003 10:14:06 PM PST by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: conservativefromGa
Well, how about that. These no account Rinos, Bush and Ashcroft actually standing up for the Constitution? Can't be. Not a dimes worth of difference between the 'Rats and 'Publicans.
22 posted on
03/06/2003 10:16:45 PM PST by
Jim Robinson
(Save the Constitution. Dump the RATs! Dump the U.N.!)
To: conservativefromGa
assault rifles are nice , i own 2 SKS.......but i sleep with a 12ga.mossburg500w/pistol grip.&7 3"mag 00buckshot. way better than an assault rifle or handgun any day. IMHO
26 posted on
03/06/2003 10:23:28 PM PST by
gdc61
(call before you come over)
To: conservativefromGa
With the U.S. military busy in Iraq, with North Korea threatening nuclear war, and with three big NATO allies turning tail ...
The time for supporting and strengthening a well armed American militia -- for homeland security -- is NOW.
To: conservativefromGa
Typically, the writer of this article is lying. I watched the exchange between DiFi and Ashcroft and her question was not about renewing, but about "strengthening" the law (whatever that means). Ashcroft responded that he and the President supported the law "as written" and wouldn't be looking to strengthen it if it gets reauthorized.
Notice how there is no direct Ashcroft quote making the writer's point. This is an article to enflame the gun-haters.
44 posted on
03/06/2003 11:04:37 PM PST by
Deb
To: conservativefromGa
I think the best thing the Republicans in the house could do is make sure this thing gets bottled up in committee untill after the 2004 elections, which isn't that difficult to do.
My opinion, considering President Bush's record on guns in Texas, is that he opposes this, but is trying to appear on the fence for the sake of the "sucker-moms".
This coming up in September 2004, 2 months before the election, is really a no-win situation for the president. If it makes it to his desk and he signs it he knows he probably just wrote off his chances in states he carried last time such as West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas where he won due to pro-gun democrat crossover votes. On the other hand if he vetos it, he will be painted by his democrat opponent and the media as a "gun extremist" who is furthur right than even the republican congress, which will hurt him in the "toss-up" states and with the "sucker-mom" voters.
The best situation is for the renewel to get bottled up in congress on some procedural motion until after the election. Then the congress can kill it, or the president can veto it without any repercussions.
The only problem with this scenario is that the congress is up for reelection too and many of the RINO's won't want the "blame" for holding this up on their shoulder.
But the fact is this legislation was approved by the thinnest majority in 1994, and the congress is more pro-gun and republican today so if I had to put odds on this thing being renewed, I would have to say 70-30 against. Of course a year and a half is a long time, anything could happen, another "columbine tragedy" anything...
49 posted on
03/07/2003 5:49:03 AM PST by
apillar
To: conservativefromGa
The exquisite pissing off of the Demolibs will only be frosting on the cake...
60 posted on
03/07/2003 5:35:02 PM PST by
tracer
(/b>)
To: The Plight Continues
Ping
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson