We've all noticed that there really isn't much difference between the Republicrats and the Democans. Is it possible that there's some... higher?... power that's directing all this? Maybe those who worry about the NWO and the Bilderbergers and Tri-Lateral Commission are really onto something. Maybe bush is supposed to lose the next election, leaving all this gun control stuff hanging around for his successor to play with.
What would Kerry do with some sort of ammo ban? How about an Assault Weapons Ban or a smart gun law?
I don't know. I might be FOS, but I don't trust any politician, regardless of his party affiliation. If Craig submits an amendment to his own bill there has to be something in it for him. If nothing else, a bill to "study" armor piercing ammo has to define the subject of the study. Once AP ammo is defined it will never be un-defined-- see 'assault weapon' for an example of this. We'll be feeling the effects of this "study" for years.
Now, while you've still got those tinfoil beanies on, start thinking about how to stock up on surplus ammo. It might pay to stockpile a few cases of stuff you don't shoot... yet. In other words, BLOAT!
No, I don't buy that stuff. I think there's a much simpler explanation -- and it's IMO much more ominous in its implications.
From my post here:
To: ArrogantBustardThat Republican President, while still a candidate, promised to sign a renewal of the 1994 Ugly Gun ban. He was, so they tell me, triangulating; trying to win the votes of the whining leftists but also telling the Republican controlled Congress not to put an UG ban on his desk in the first place. If that's the case, that Republican controlled Congress had bloody well better not pass an UG ban. Here's the kicker: we're not asking the Congress to actually repeal anything. If the Congress does precisely nothing, in September 2004 the Ugly Gun ban ends. Poof. Gone. In 1994, the Congress put a 10 year poison pill in the Ugly Gun ban, and even so it just barely passed a Democrat controlled House. Asking the Congress to do nothing is not asking them to display any particular courage.Maybe this has been addressed already (I confess to not having read this entire thread, having just found it a few minutes ago), but I have a question.
Does anyone seriously believe that even if the AWB "sunsets", it will not be "resurrected" within a few months, perhaps shortly after the election is behind us?
They could reinstate it anew, or, simply declare it "renewed", and I have no doubt that they'd have the chutzpah to go so far as to make it retroactive to the date it "expired", so that any "violators" could be handily prosecuted, should it become expedient to do so.
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that politicians can be remarkably creative when it comes to doing what they want. And if there's another thing I've learned :) it's that politicians do not like letting go of something once they've got their mitts on it.
I think the last time I succombed to the cry to "Call, now,, and make your voice heard!" was when they passed the AWB. I called Dole's office. I was told that the calls were coming in hot and heavy, pretty much all against passage. Dole himself said that the calls and letters came in at a staggering rate, and were running something like two thousand to one -- against passage.
Yet, he voted for it.
There's a lesson in that for anyone who really thinks that these guys give a rat's ass about what the constituency wants. At least, that's my opinion.
It's also my opinion that the consensus among these guys is that the AWB is a good piece of legislation -- a modest piece of legislation -- and no one but a bona fide nutcase could possibly disagree. So, they may stall -- for a while -- and they may humor the "nutcases", but ultimately, NWIH will they give up a "hard fought-for piece of basic common-sense legislation."
And for those few who might even consider bucking "the will of the Congress", there's two immutable laws of nature to keep them in line, namely, Karl Rove, and "The 900 FBI Files". In other words, they're boxed in on both sides.
And if all else fails (not that I think it will), there's something genuinely ugly waiting in the wings.
Stop for a moment, and consider that there are currently three Constitutional amendments proposed by mainstream legislators. I don't think this has ever happened before. Besides the homosexual "marriage" amendment, there's another one to allow Granholm and Schwarznegger to run for President (hey, you don't think they just came up with the idea for no reason at all, do you?), and another to allow the government to select replacements for our elected representatives in an "emergency".
My point in mentioning this?
I think there's a good chance we're in the lead-up to a "bipartisan" call for a Constitutional Convention. We may see a few more "urgently needed" amendments proposed, and then, we'll be informed that there is no possible way to see them passed in time unless done so via a con-con.
Of course, once they go that route, all bets are off. The Constitution is gone. *poof* That's it, it had a nice run, let's keep it in the history books, but as far as any "Constitutional protections", it is history.
So when looking at this stuff being thrown at us now, let's not get so preoccupied that we don't notice that there may be bigger fish to fry. Far bigger.
I will be surprised if there isn't a call for a con-con -- soon -- from "mainstream leaders", with, "broad bipartisan support", pitched as little more than a way to get these "vitally needed amendments" implemented "in a reasonable timeframe." There'll likely be an amendment bandied about for pretty much every significant faction of the populace, with perhaps a couple of "national security" measures tossed in for good measure.
So don't expect very many of "the voters" to be very up in arms about the idea. In fact, don't expect them to be up in arms about it at all. And don't expect the media to report on it as if it were anything to get bent out of shape over. "In other news, both houses of Congress agreed to hold a 'Constitutional Convention' next month to iron out the details of a few items that would otherwise take years to handle. The Dow was up 25 points, and the Celtics are expected to win their next game. Stay tuned for an important in-depth report on Brittany Spears latest love interest."
Me, cynical?
Time will tell, I guess.
Here's an interesting tidbit for you:
A couple of years ago I was reading a book written by William Cooper. He talked about a lot of conspiracy theories and got into some really "far-out" stuff like UFOs.
Most of the book was based simply on his personal observations/experiences, so I simply dismissed those claims since there was no hard evidence.
However, at the end of the book, he had a very interesting chart. It was a chart of CFR members, organized by category. One category was "executive branch", another was "legislative", another was "industry leaders", another was "media", and so on....
There was also a category for "judicial". This list was brief compared to the others. There were only 3 names listed as being members of the CFR.
Steven Breyer
Ruth Ginsburg
Lawrence Silberman
Do two of those names sound familiar? Keep in mind this book was written in 1991....