Re: FN-49
- From: "Ron Bloom" <rcbloom2@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 07:14:52 -0800
# # Yeah, let's blame Bush for the failure of the border,
# It is his fault.
Really? He tried to fix the problem and the Democrats in congress
stopped him from doing it. Tell me again how it's his fault, then?
Let's see, he is in charge of the border not Congress. Congress gave him
money to build a fence he did not. The Democrats have been in for less than
a year, so what is yuor excuse for every year since 1994?
# when the
# # democratic majority has failed to do anything useful on the topic
since
# # they were elected?
# Are you kidding? How about the Republicans doing nothing from 1994
until
# the people got sick of their fakeness? I hate the majority of Democrats
but
# you show ignorance here of the subject.
Disagreement does not equal ignorance.
You do not know what you are talking about. Period.
# Read the Constitution, the
# Legislative Branch makes laws, we have plenty of them. The Executive
branch
# enforces the laws, you know, runs the Border Patrol, uses federal
agencies
# to enforce the border. You remember this stuff from American History
class?
Of course I do. You can't seriously be supporting the Democrats and
pretending that you care about the right to keep and bear arms, can you?
Because there's not one Democrat, without exception, who I trust to
defend my rights in that regard.
No read my entire post.
# # Guys, if we don't keep our eye on the ball (gun rights), and we get
# # distracted into voting for the democrat they nominate, we'll lose
# # everything.
# No, if the Dems want to lose everything, like they did in 1994, they
will
# pull a repeat. What did we lose the last time the Dems held the
Congress
# and White House? The Brady Bill, and the AW ban, that did not really
ban
# anything, and the Dems got their asses kicked over it. The main point
here
# is the SUPREME COURT. That is why we cannot have a Democrat in the
White
# House in 2009.
I don't care why you vote against the democrat in 2008, as long as you
realize that the second amendment is the ONLY thing that allows the
first, the fourth, and the others, to exist.
Yeah ok, nice slogan. Again, it is the Supreme Court that decides what the
Second Amendment means.
# #Single issue voters, if you're not with RKBA you're against
# # it.
# Well, Bush is against it. Alberto Gonzalez was against it. He was for
# renewing the assault weapons ban, along with Bush.
Bush is useless for second amendment issues, but that's a whole hell of
a lot better than aggressively against them.
The Dems as a whole are not, and the Republicans as a whole are not on our
side either.
# #EVERYTHING else is secondary.
# Again are you kidding? So, if the other 9 amendments of the Bill of
Rights
# goes away, it is ok, if we still have the Second? If we do not have the
# rest, we might as well not have the Second, because that is the reason
we
# have guns, is to protect our nation. We live in a police state, but we
can
# have guns, that is OK, or we have a federal government that allows
people to
# be held without trial, hey that is OK with you, as long as you can go
# shooting. The elite in the USSR were allowed to have guns.
The second protects ALL the others. If you don't understand that, I am
wasting my time trying to talk to you.
You are because you are in way over your head.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: 9 people killed in a random shooting rampage
- Next by Date: Re: FN-49
- Previous by thread: Re: Prayer is cheap and innefective. Laws that keep AK-47's out of the hands of the mental defectives work!
- Next by thread: Re: FN-49
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
