Restore the 2nd Amendment & Take back the California Assembly Today!

Guns & Ammo Magazine ^ | June 9, 2002 | Ms.Constitution

[Mr.B.goes.to.Washington]

The reason we have so much trouble taking back our state is because of people who say "give up."

I WILL NOT GIVE UP!

If California is lost, do you really think that things will stop there? For goodness sake, you do realize, don't you, that once California is gone, next to go will be Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, etc., etc.

NOW is the time to draw a line in the sand and say "NO MORE!!!"

We haven't lost until we quit! People who suggest we quit turn my stomach!

And to advise that we just quit makes me believe that you either haven't THOUGHT this through, or you WANT us to lose!

[glc1173@aol.com]

"If California is lost, do you really think that things will stop there? For goodness sake, you do realize, don't you, that once California is gone, next to go will be Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, etc., etc."

BS. Look at that county-by-county Red-vs.-Blue voting map - and you'll fast see why your "domino theory" of gun control today is even loonier than Lyndon Johnson's "domino theory" of Vietnam to Hawaii was in the 1960s.

The commies lost virtually every county in Kalifornia but the coastal urban ones - hardly anything indicating a trend that could propagate to the Mountain States or the non-coastal West.

[Mr.B.goes.to.Washington]

While I don't concede that your theory is correct (after all, 20 years ago there would have been many more "red" counties than there are now) . . .

It still makes absolutely no sense to give up and QUIT - We have NOTHING to gain by quitting - and MUCH to gain by all pulling together and working for our common goal!

By just giving up you do nothing but embolden our enemies who then think that we don't have the stomach to actually fight for what we believe in!

I'll sleep much better by ignoring your advice, and instead heeding the advice of Theodore Roosevelt . . .

THE CREDIT BELONGS TO THOSE WHO

ARE ACTUALLY IN THE ARENA, WHO STRIVE

VALIANTLY; WHO KNOW THE GREAT

ENTHUSIASMS, THE GREAT DEVOTIONS,

AND SPEND THEMSELVES IN A WORTHY CAUSE;

WHO AT THE BEST, KNOW THE TRIUMPH

OF HIGH ACHIEVEMENT; AND WHO,

AT THE WORST, IF THEY FAIL, FAIL

WHILE DARING GREATLY, SO THAT THEIR

PLACE SHALL NEVER BE WITH THOSE COLD

AND TIMID SOULS WHO KNOW NEITHER

VICTORY NOR DEFEAT.

[gc4nra]

Why don't you come out to ATF Night and meet John in person, he runs the whole show!

ATF NIGHT - Thursday, June 20, 2002

The best pro-Second Amendment meeting in Los Angeles!

Drink Alcohol (optional), smoke Tobacco (optional), talk about Firearms (mandatory)!

Attendees and guest speakers include some of the most prolific writers and speakers, activists, politicans, and of course, Liberty Belles! Cocktails are at 6:30; Optional Dinner is at 7:30 pm. San Gennaro Cafe Banquet Room at 9543 Culver Blvd., Culver City. Smoking on back patio. Hosted by pro-2A activist and candidate for Assembly John W. Brantuk, Sr. Founded by The Lawyers' Second Amendment Society, Inc. Be there! Be there! Be there!

[gc4nra]

"ping!"

[DeweyCA]

You want to give CA over to Aztlan??!! You think that htat the Dems would allow that to occur, so that they would then lose all of those electoral votes and congressional seats??!! Please think again, or at least a first time. There is no way that the Dems would let that happen. They gain too much from stirring the pot of racial hatred.

We need to hold back and, where possible, reverse the tide. If there is a winable open seat to pick off, then that is the place to put your money because there aren't that many of those around. Please get serious. Aztlan ain't gonna happen for a long time. CA needs our help when it's a doable deal, like this one seems to be.

[Mr.B.goes.to.Washington]

Thanks for the kind words, GC!

We'll have a great time at "ATF Night" this month - may have a BIG surprise!

[Mr.B.goes.to.Washington]

Thanks, DeweyCA!

I hope that you'll pass the word along to everyone that this seat definitely IS WINNABLE . . . and with the help of good Freepers like yourself WE WILL WIN!

Let the good folks out there know that we're slooowly raising the additional funds to make this happen, but if everybody would chip in a little (or a lot, if their situation allows it) we could get to our goal quickly enough to make a real, positive impact!

Contribute Here

[timestax]

You can't "take back" the state legislature in a state that is mainly groups that reflexively vote left-liberal: non-Cuban Hispanics, blacks, gays, Hollyweird.

DITTO !!

[Mr.B.goes.to.Washington]

And so we hear from another "Cold and Timid Soul . . ."

I can only pity you, for since you do not have the fire in your belly to fight for what you say you believe in, you may know defeat, but you will NEVER know VICTORY!

[buffyt]

We lived in San Marino, Ca. (near Pasadena) 1988-90 and it was a very conservative little town. Recently read an editorial from there and it was LIBERAL hogwash! Our church out here (in Cal.) was very conservative Lutheran back then. Now it is very PC. I don't mind equality, I LOVE equality, but PC is just plain silly. It is so socialist liberal out here now. Commie state! We live in Texas but have an apt. in Claremont, Ca. right now, due to husband's job. Can't believe how liberal Cal. is compared to Texas - like two different countries and cultures!

[lowbridge]

bump

[blackie]

Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left !!

Guns Save Lives !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!

No Guns, No Rights !!

Molon Labe !!

[Mr.B.goes.to.Washington]

Right on!

[Gone_Postal]

Supreme Court Declines Review on Right to Own Guns
Mon Jun 10,11:17 AM ET

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) on Monday stayed out of the politically charged debate on whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, a position advocated by the Bush administration in reversing the government's long-held policy.

Without comment, the justices declined to hear two cases in which the Justice Department ( news - web sites) last month said the right to bear arms does not apply just to state militias, a change in policy denounced by gun control advocates and praised by the National Rifle Association.

The Justice Department argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to get involved in the two cases, leaving intact federal appeals court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of provisions of federal gun control laws.

The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939 when it said the amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia."

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In a footnote in the two cases, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the government now takes the position the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of the militia, to bear firearms.

Olson said the right was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

The Justice Department has said it plans to defend vigorously the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of all existing federal firearms laws.

The administration's shift in position first surfaced in May last year in a letter by Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) to the National Rifle Association. It was repeated in a memo sent in November to all federal prosecutors.

In one of the cases, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to carry guns, but that exceptions do exist.

The appeals court rejected the arguments by a Texas physician, Timothy Emerson, that a 1994 federal gun law, designed to deny guns to people under restraining orders, was unconstitutional.

The other case involved an Oklahoma man, John Lee Haney, who was convicted of owning two machine guns. He claimed the federal law that bans the possession of a machine gun violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Justice Department said the constitutional challenges and claims in both cases lacked merit and did not warrant Supreme Court review.

[blackie]

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

[absalom01]

Mr. Brantuk is the gentleman running for the state assembly that I mentioned at last month's meeting in Glendale. He's one of the good guys, and a check or a couple of hours of volunteer time would be one of the best investments that I can think of.

Visualize the Dems with a supermajority. Scary thought.

[Joy Angela]

bump back at ya!

[Mr.B.goes.to.Washington]

Thanks for the kind words, and for the reminder to everyone that in order to win, we all need to pitch in together.

I hope that you'll forward the private email I'm sending to you to all your contacts so that we can get the word out as far and wide as possible.

Again, my most sincere thank you.

---John

[Mr.B.goes.to.Washington]

Thanks for the "bump!"