Posted on 01/21/2005 9:26:27 AM PST by Iconoclast2
© 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 personally don't care what Alberto Gonzalez' stance on guns is. Until he's in a position to change law, it isn't relevant. The question for me is whether he will enforce the law as it exists, and I believe he will.
This is all I ever want to know about Joseph Farah.
How does magazine capacity all work into this debate? I know that under the AWB, semi-auto firearms were limited to 10 rounds. Now that the AWB has expired, is that limit now gone?
I've been looking at the Springfield XD, which has a 15+1 capacity in 9mm. Is that civilian-legal? What about in MA?
I'm afraid I just don't understand the issue of magazine capacity with semi-autos.
I think the former is more likely.
Well, my first reaction to this post was "huh?"
I agree, as long as he goes after gun toting Criminals, he can't change the constitution.
Agreed. The guy isn't running for Senate or President. Was he my favorite pick? Not at all. But he's going to enforce the law as it exists, IMHO.
Doesn't he realize that statement will be used against him for the rest of his life?
Basically, yes... magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, that were manufactured AFTER 1994 are legal now.
I put that in bold because you could buy such magazines before the AWB expired; they just had to be manufactured before 1994.
Dumbest. Law. Ever.
He may be a gun-grabber but at least he's La Raza.
Bush said he would sign the AWB if it came to his desk as well. I think you are correct, he is just playing politics. I will sleep with one eye open on this issue.
"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."
______________________________________
af_vet_1981 wrote:
This is all I ever want to know about Joseph Farah.
John Lenin wrote:
-- as long as he goes after gun toting Criminals, he can't change the constitution.
Thats some nerve to put Alberto in the same league as Janet Reno. Reno had a militant attitude going in to the job, Alberto doesn't.
Teddy Roosevelt
Farah is an idiot.
Quoting Roosevelt is like quoting Stalin to me. You gained no points in my eyes.
Geez, Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians are now saints of conservatism (barf). Both of those situations could have been resolved without violence if Randy Weaver and David Koresh hadnt been paranoid schizods. You really think law enforcement, when they come with their warrants, are just going to walk away because you want it that way? A little common sense please.
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.