Posted on 04/24/2003 9:07:30 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
In Monday's edition of the Washington Post, Dana Milbank was kind enough to report on the results of KeepAndBearArms.com's poll slamming President Bush for his support for the Clinton/Feinstein 1994 federal ban on various semi-automatic firearms and on effective-capacity magazines.
The Post even pointed out the strange silence from the NRA's "leadership" on Bush's promise to follow in his father's footsteps as a gun banning backstabber.
Here's the Post's paragraph:
"The National Rifle Association, which opens its convention in Orlando this week, has held its fire after a Bush spokesman said the president supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. Not so the pro-gun Web site keepandbeararms.com, which did a somewhat, er, loaded Web poll. Asked whether they would still vote for Bush if he signs a renewal of the ban, 79.6 percent of respondents chose the option, 'Hell no, and I'll tell all of my friends to abandon him, too.' Three percent chose the less extreme option, 'Yes, I would still vote for him, even after he proves that he's a traitor.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7981-2003Apr21
If you've ever seen NRA's Executive VP, Wayne LaPierre speak publicly, you know the man has a way with words. The cat doesn't get Mr. Smoothtalker's tongue. His silence is deafening.
MESSAGE TO WAYNE LAPIERRE AT NRA:
Playing "politics" with our rights again? If you fellas sell us out on the so-called "assault weapons" ban, everything in this archive: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA will look sweet, kind and gentle compared to the active, aggressive, continual public awareness campaign aimed at NRA's leadership that will be launched. Gun owners are fed up with compromises and political games being played against our rights. The vast majority polled promise they will not cast another vote in Bush's direction if he signs this ban. Do you honestly believe your membership tally won't suffer a similar fate?
The sunsetting of the Clinton/Feinstain gun ban is our line in the sand. No compromise. None. Sunsetting the ban is the only option.
~~~~~~~
Our "pro gun" President recently expressed support for the current illegal firearms ban -- the Post broke the bad but unsurprising news to us -- and support for renewing it when it comes up for its scheduled sunset in September of 2004, just before the general election.
All NRA has managed to say publicly about Bush's support for the gun ban is that it won't matter if Congress doesn't put the bill on Mr. Bush's desk -- a weak-kneed statement made by Wayne LaPierre. While factually correct but empty of commitment -- and thus requiring no spine -- gun owners who send the NRA money ought to stop and wonder why they are giving him a pass on his support for a federal gun ban that clearly violates the Second Amendment.
WorldNetDaily.com ran a report on the next day, showing rabid anti-gun, anti-self-defense Senators -- including Dianne Feinstein and Chuck "Snickers That Women in His District Are Defenseless Against Local Murderers" Schumer -- praising the President's new fondness toward gun banning.
Rabid gun banners are praising the Prez for joining them in their quest to disarm Americans, but NRA is AWOL? Hello?
When the NRA convention convenes later this week, all lion-hearted patriots in attendance are urged to make noise for one thing:
SUNSETTING THIS GUN BAN
For clarification, the Post didn't quite paint the whole picture on where gun owners stand in regards to the President's offer to pull a Bill Clinton. A full 92% of 8,677 respondents said they would not vote for the President in his bid for reelection -- if he signed the soon-to-be-submitted reauthorization of the gun ban.
The Washington Post -- along with its balanced counterpart, the Times -- is a staple inside the Beltway. There's no doubt that President Bush is on notice as to where gun owners stand on his obedience to illegal, unAmerican gun prohibitionism. It's now time to rattle the Congressional cages. If you haven't contacted your Rep and Senator, this is your notice to add some phone calls to your "to do" list. Naturally, that doesn't apply if you happen to have a political whore like Dianne Feinstein or Hillary Clinton lording over your rights; women who'd rather see other women raped than rapists shot aren't likely to grasp concepts like "arms = freedom" -- guns are for their bodyguards, paid for you YOU.
But if you live in an area where your congress critters can be persuaded (or simply warned) by floods of phone calls, faxes and mail, it is indeed time to start making waves. Do your part. Carry your weight on this one, and get your friends to do the same.
The battle to sunset the illegal, immoral 1994 Clinton/Feinstein semi-auto rifle ban is about to get ugly...
A broad-based coalition of many gun rights organizations has formed and is growing and will be announced any day now. Just to become a member, a group must agree to get vindictive with ANY public servant who supports, endorses, promotes, votes for or even hedges on the 1994 federal gun ban. Up to, and including, our "pro gun" Republicrat President. Same goes for ANY "gun rights organization" that sells us out, no matter how large or small, no matter how popular or entrenched.
It's time to separate the wheat from the chaff in the battle for firearms freedoms. Nobody gets a pass on supporting this gun ban.
Lead your charge. Gun Owners of America has an excellent website feature to lead you straight to contact information for your congressional servants. Make them serve Liberty, and inform them that their failure to do so will result in political pain: http://www.GunOwners.org/activism.htm
Please Note: an email to a federal legislator is nothing compared to a phone call, a fax, or a hand-written letter delivered by snail mail. You're lucky if an email to a federal legislator gets tallied. Email does not get read and considered point by point. CALL! At least. Sending snail mail AND calling is ideal. Ending this onerous federal gun ban -- and smacking down a host of anti-rights communist fools in the process -- is worth the time.
Here's that link again: http://www.GunOwners.org/activism.htm
"If you do phones, you can ruin the staff's day and they will get nothing done -- because they are spending all their time on the phone. That definitely gets their attention." --Legislative Correspondent for congressman on our side April 23, 2003
KeepAndBearArms.com Gun Owners' Home Page
If a gun holds 10 rounds in the magazine it's okay. If it holds 11 or more then it's a dangerous assault weapon.
If a gun holds 10 rounds, but has a bayonet lug it's very dangerous. Remove the bayonet and it's safe. After all, look at all the crimes being committed with bayonets. I feel much safer knowing that the person standing next to me in the grocery store can't attach a bayonet to the AK-47 he's holding.
We also need to do something about those 50 Caliber BMGs. Although no crime has ever been committed with one (it weighs over 20 lbs, and costs over $2000), it could be used to shoot down airplanes and satellites and stuff. (I have my theory about the Columbia, too but that will have to wait until another thread.)
We also need to get rid of those new 500 S&Ws, too. I hear that the recoil is so bad on them that if three people all pointed them in the air and fired at the same time it might send the planet out of its orbit and into the sun. (I'll post my "Does cowboy action shooting cause global warming?" theory later.)
We have to ban affordable guns because they'll be used by poor people. We have to get rid of small guns because they're too easy to conceal. We have to get rid of the big guns because they're too dangerous. We have to get rid of expensive guns because they aren't suitable for duck hunting. </ Sarcasm>
I would be deeply saddened and deeply disappointed (to coin a phrase) with Bush if he reauthorizes the ban. But shame on us in the pro-2nd Amendment community if we don't do everything in our power to stop the reauthorization in congress before the battle moves to the president's desk. I htink we will get more 'bang for our buck' focusing on Congress on this one.
Bush gun control plan is threat to homeland security
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's support for renewing a Clinton administration ban on so-called assault rifles sends the wrong message to terrorists and other criminals, Libertarians say.
"Politicians who want to disarm vulnerable Americans at a time like this are a threat to homeland security," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party chairman. "The government simply can't protect everyone, all the time, but at least it can allow Americans to protect themselves."
The 1994 assault weapons law, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and then-Rep. Charles Schumer, D-NY, banned the manufacture and importation of certain types of semi-automatic rifles and prohibited magazines of more than 10 rounds. Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan set off a public furor recently when he said the president "supports reauthorization of the current law," which is set to expire in September 2004 because of a 10-year sunset provision.
But banning guns sends terrorists and other criminals the message that Americans are even more vulnerable than before, Libertarians point out.
"Fortunately, terrorists carrying semi-automatic rifles haven't yet stormed a shopping mall, an office park or a busy urban area, but they could," Neale said. "If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?
"Of course, an assault weapon may never be used to thwart a terrorist assault. But if overturning this gun ban saves just one life, it will have been worthwhile."
The main justification for the gun ban -- that assault weapons are a favorite choice for criminals -- doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, Neale pointed out.
"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of violent crimes, and the FBI admits that far more people are killed every year by knives and blunt objects than by any kind of rifle, including an 'assault rifle,' " he said. "So banning assault weapons to protect public safety makes as much sense as banning knives and baseball bats."
The threat posed by assault weapons is so exaggerated that Joseph Constance, a deputy police chief in Trenton, NJ, once told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "My officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
The bigger threat is that Bush will follow through on his promise to sign the renewed assault weapons ban, Neale said.
"When it comes to supporting crime-victim disarmament laws, Bush is a recidivist," he said. "Just eight months after terrorists commandeered four airlines on September 11, Bush opposed a House bill that would have allowed armed pilots in the cockpit. Fortunately, the president reversed himself in response to public pressure -- and the legislation was approved."
Now Bush seems to be repeating his mistake -- and that's bad news for homeland security, Libertarians say.
"Let's urge Bush to flip-flop in the direction of freedom again and let this gun ban quietly expire," he said. "It's time to stop the government's assault on public safety."
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Ain't that the truth.
You could reincarnate Michaelangelo, have him Recreate the Sistine Chapel as a Back piece, And Skeeter, from Moe's would tell you How you should have come there first.
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.