This is going to be an up-hill battle, one by one we
need to start replacing these Dems. who want to take
are guns away. Welcome to FR, great post.
I just received this in Saturday's mail - looks like we can make an impact TODAY!
From: John W. Brantuk for Assembly:
NOTE: Please give this your most serious consideration, take action, and then forward it on to all others whom you know truly value the Second Amendment. Time is short to make a difference!
******************************************************************************************************************
Impending Danger
The onslaught to completely strip us of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms has only just begun. Unless we elect more pro-gun voices to our State House this November, we will surely see our most precious of all rights continue to be eroded, if not eliminated completely.
In fact, my opponent in the race for the State Assembly has stated that he would like to see (and if elected will work to implement) a Washington, D.C. style total GUN BAN implemented state-wide.
WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!
****************************************************
A Viable Solution
YOU can make a difference TODAY . . .
The opportunity has arisen for our campaign to get out ahead of this gun-banner, and tie up several advertising and informational venues with our own pro-gun, pro-Constitution message. This will accomplish two very important things:
1. WE GAIN tremendously increased public exposure of our message;
2. Our gun-grabber opponent LOSES opportunities to get out his message.
Bottom line: We gain greater control of the voters' attention and the message the voters hear.
******************************************
Why YOUR Help is Needed TODAY
In order to take advantage of this great opportunity to practically "silence" my gun-grabbing opponent and AMPLIFY MY Conservative, Constitutional message to the voters, we must act quickly!
In fact, if we don't tie up this opportunity with contracts and deposits BEFORE our opponent finds out about this opportunity, HE will likely turn the tables on us and use it against us!
This opportunity is not without cost: I must raise an additional $18,600 of campaign contributions within the next few days if I am to take advantage of this opportunity and insure that my opponent does not.
How in the world am I going to raise $18,600 in just a few days?
The answer: Only with your help. One contributor at a time.
******************************************
Please send your largest possible contribution TODAY.
Let's not lose this golden opportunity.
If you've already contributed in the past, thank you. Now please dig down and contribute again;
If you haven't already contributed, please do so now . . .
If you can afford to send the maximum contribution of $3000/person please do so.
If you can afford to send $500, or $250, or $100 it will be most welcome.
If you can afford to send $56 to take control of the 56th District, it's very appropriate.
If you can afford to send just $25, or $15, or $10 it will be most sincerely appreciated.
Please make your contribution NOW, by check or credit card by visiting the following website - it's Fast, Free, and Secure:
or
Make your check or money order payable to "Brantuk For Assembly" and mail it to
Brantuk For Assembly
P.O. Box 171
Whittier, CA 90608
Thank you for your contribution, and for forwarding this message on to other like-minded Patriots.
Let me close with one last thing: In the military I learned a lot of important lessons. One lesson is that you shouldn't fight unless you really intend to win.
And I do intend to win. My family and I are willing to make huge sacrifices to win. I'll campaign 16 to 18 hours a day if I have to. I'm 100% committed to victory.
The second lesson is that when the bullets start coming, it's important who's in the foxhole with you. That person can give you the support, encouragement and cover you need to survive and win.
The person I want in my foxhole this election is you.
Together we'll give the liberals the fight of their lives. And when it's over, we'll have the biggest celebration of all time.
Let's roll!
-- John
P.S. If you'd like further information regarding the campaign, my positions on any of the issues, or to find out how you can be involved in helping us take back control of our state government and return it to Constitutional Common Sense, email the campaign at Info@BrantukForAssembly.org
.
If Davis is reelected and the Dems do get their super majority, California will become the most Leftist state in the nation, surpassing even Vermont and Hawaii. If that happens, we may as well turn out the lights on this state's future.
In my dreams. As a California native, I have no idea how so many of my fellow citizens have been led by their noses like sheep to the slaughter.
Kalifornia is ethnically unwinnable. 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.
The best thing you can do strategically is do everything possible to speed up Kalifornia's secession as "Aztlan" as Chicano militants have long demanded. That "reconquista" will end the Democrats' hopes of ever again controlling Congress or winning the WhoreHouse.
Scandals of antigun politicians - from Kalifornia to Manhattan!
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.