Posted on 01/21/2005 11:58:10 AM PST by Free and Armed
Stop Alberto Gonzales
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: January 21, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
This may be a first.
I, Joseph Farah, am joining with an informal coalition that includes the Communist Party USA, People for the American Way and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund to block confirmation of the Alberto Gonzales as attorney general.
Granted, my reasons for opposing this guy are a bit different that the groups named above. But I agree with them that he must be stopped.
I never had much use for Gonzales, but the last straw came this week when he told the U.S. Senate he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.
First of all, let me speak plainly: There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The guns included in this ban, and previous misguided legislation passed by federal and state governments, are not automatics. They are not machine-guns. They fire one round at a time, like hundreds of other firearms that people use to hunt deer, shoot skeet or simply to protect themselves and their families from those who would take their lives, their liberty or their property.
I have challenged my colleagues in the press – time and time again – to define the term "assault weapon." They can't do it. There is no definition. They are firearms defined not by what they do, but by how they look – scary. Nevertheless, the press continues this subterfuge. It is disinformation and propaganda that is leading to the erosion of our inherent rights as Americans and our ability to preserve those rights.
What is an "assault weapon"? I can define it for you: It's any weapon that looks mean. It's any weapon government officials want to take away from you. Taking them is the first step toward disarming all U.S. citizens in direct defiance of the U.S. Constitution.
Let's be clear on something: The Founding Fathers didn't write the Second Amendment to protect deer hunters or skeet shooters.
Deer hunting was not on the minds of the framers of our Constitution. They understood that without arms the people would be no match for the kind of powerful government we have in Washington, D.C., today.
So often, the gun grabbers portray themselves as crime fighters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even in a representative republic, when civil order breaks down, as it inevitably does, law-abiding citizens are not safe without adequate firepower. The image of Korean store owners perched on top of their businesses during the L.A. riots is indelible proof of that simple fact.
Just a generation ago, nearly every politician in America understood the purpose of the Second Amendment and defended it vigorously.
The late Hubert H. Humphrey, a man who defined liberal Democratic politics in the mid-1960s had this to say on the subject: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Today, even so-called "constitutional scholars" like Gonzales – President Bush's nominee for attorney general of the United States, the highest law-enforcement position in the country – don't get it.
Or maybe he does. Maybe he just doesn't care. Maybe he's one of those lawyers who will twist and bend the Constitution to support his own political agenda. And maybe that political agenda is opposition to firearms in the hands of law-abiding Americans.
The gun grabbers understand they can't win the debate today by revealing their true intentions – taking all firearms away from law-abiding citizens as they have in some cities in America. So they wage their war on guns incrementally – banning classifications of weapons, dividing and conquering the opposition and softening up the people on the idea that the government has a legitimate power to ban guns.
Humphrey was right. So were the Founding Fathers. Tyranny is always possible. In fact, without a vigilant, armed civilian populace, it is inevitable.
There's only one ultimate defense against the imposition of tyranny here – 300 million well-armed Americans.
So, count me in opposition to Gonzales – along with the Communists, People for the American Way and MALDEF.
I never had much use for WND.
bang list material ... maybe.
Bork Gun Grabbing Gonzales.
"I never had much use for WND."
Ain't that the truth. Farah is becoming a parody of himself.
He sure is. I posted this article cause I'm bored, but it does concern me somewhat that Gonzales supports renewing/expanding the assault weapons ban.
Our elected officials in DC have already proved that what WE want makes NO difference to them. They just confirmed that when they gave Specter the position he lobbied them for, contrary to what Americans told them that we wanted. They were bombarded with protests, and totally ignored us. They're a bunch of traitors and we can't do anything about it. There's no time to vote them out of office. When the gun grabbers realize that Gonzales supports the ban, they will come out of the wood works to support him. He's going to be our next Attorney General.
True, but if the Commies don't like him, he must be doing something right :-)
Thanks, Joe. You've officially jumped the shark.
Yup. He has.
I think the commies dislike him cause he works for Bush. That's enough in their minds.
You guys don't feel that it is dangerous precedent to appoint a gun-grabber to the highest law enforcement post in the country?!?
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.