How about the people who did this?
Bill Klinton said after the 1993 WTC bombing that it was a matter of law enforcement....worked well now, didn't it?
Posted on 11/17/2004 1:55:47 PM PST by neverdem
www.gunowners.org
Nov 2004
November 5, 2004
The 2004 election might be remembered as "The Year of the Gun Owner."
Presidential candidate John Kerry, a liberal anti-gun Senator from Massachusetts, tried to morph himself into 'The Hunter.' Rarely a day passed during the latter part of the campaign without Kerry posing with a firearm and speaking about his strong support of the Second Amendment, in complete contradiction to his 20-year anti-gun voting record.
Kerry was not alone. All across the country, anti-gun politicians tried to hide behind gun-friendly photo ops and empty rhetoric about how much they support gun rights.
Gun Owners of America, through its candidate rating program and political action committee, was able to expose much anti-gun duplicity this year, and the results were extremely heartening.
Of course, the obstructionist anti-gun Senate Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, is finally deposed. Replacing him is former Representative John Thune, a strong pro-gun ally supported by Gun Owners of America -- Political Victory Fund (GOA-PVF).
But while ousting Daschle was certainly one of the most crucial races this year, there were six open Senate seats that anti-gunners had their sights set on. GOA-PVF played an important role in thwarting that plan and helping to elect strong pro-gun advocates to five of the six open seats.
In Louisiana, pro-gun Rep. David Vitter shocked pundits by winning this senate race outright. In that state, all candidates, regardless of party, are placed on the November ballot. If no candidate were to break the 50% mark, the top two vote getters would head into a December runoff election.
Both major candidates, Vitter and Rep. Chris John (D), claimed to be pro-gun. Rep. John, though, had voted against arming commercial airline pilots and for the unconstitutional campaign finance reform law, earning him a "C" grade by GOA as opposed to David Vitter's solid "A" rating.
GOA-PVF was the ONLY national gun rights group to jump into the race, contacting thousands of Second Amendment supporters highlighting the differences between the candidates. At the end of the night, Vitter had 51% of the vote and is now the Senator-elect. He replaces retiring anti-gun "F" rated Senator John Breaux (D).
One of the most exciting races of Election Day was the one to replace retiring Senator Don Nickles (R). Running were former Representative Dr. Tom Coburn and current Rep. Brad Carson.
Guns were a blazing issue right up to the end.
On Friday before the election, GOA got a call from Sen. Jim Inhofe, the senior senator from Okalahoma. He was in a campaign bus somewhere in the state, and he was upset. Coburn's opponent had sent out a large postcard claiming that he was the real pro-Second Amendment candidate in the race. In addition, the mailing alleged the Coburn was not really pro-gun.
GOA immediately faxed the campaign a letter labeling the hit piece a deception and reiterating our endorsement of Coburn, who was a solid "A" with us (his opponent was a "B"). Moreover, Coburn's leadership and integrity would have made him the pick even if their voting records had been identical.
GOA-PVF was the ONLY national gun rights group to make an endorsement in this race, helping Dr. Coburn to victory with 53% of the vote.
And this in the face of being outspent nearly two to one in a state with a Democrat registration advantage of two to one. The Republican establishment did not support Coburn, who is known as a "Dr. No" who opposes their pork projects.
Other races where GOA-PVF played a role were equally significant:
* The Senate seat in North Carolina was that of vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, a trial lawyer who earlier this year took a rare break from the campaign to come to Washington to help sink a bill designed to protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits. Running to fill this seat were pro-gun U.S. House member Richard Burr and former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, Erskine Bowles. GOA-PVF supported Rep. Burr, who won with 52% of the vote.
* In South Carolina, pro-gun House member Jim DeMint faced off against Inez Tenenbaum, State Superintendent of Education. Tenenbaum had the advantage of having won statewide office in 1998 and 2002, while Rep. DeMint was widely unknown outside of his congressional district. Rep. DeMint is a man of principle who clearly articulated his positions and stood by them. Tenenbaum, on the other hand, refused to make her Second Amendment positions known. Rep. DeMint, endorsed and supported by GOA-PVF, won with 54% of the vote.
* In the Sunshine State, a former cabinet member for President George W. Bush, Mel Martinez, faced a formidable foe in anti-gun former state senator and Florida Commissioner of Education, Betty Castor. Martinez, though a trial lawyer himself, is an outspoken opponent of the frivolous lawsuits brought by many cities and states against the gun industry. Martinez, who replaces retiring anti-gun Sen. Bob Graham, narrowly won this race with 50% of the vote.
This is why GOA's Executive Director put out a PERSONAL appeal for incumbent Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), who was combating a million dollar TV campaign that attacked her incessantly. Happily, Musgrave was able to raise $3 million, and she won her race with 51% of the vote.
Musgrave has been a leader on a whole host of conservative issues, including gun rights. She was the founder of the Second Amendment Caucus in Congress and has sponsored and cosponsored numerous pro-gun bills.
People in Musgrave's district have certainly appreciated her willingness to fight the Republican establishment in the nation's capital, just as she fought it in Denver as a state legislator.
GOA-PVF was involved in other House and Senate races. To get the full report, become a GOA member at www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm -- this will start your subscription to The Gun Owners newsletter, which will keep you up-to-date on what's happening with your gun rights.
There is no question that gun owners made significant gains in the 2004 elections. There is the question, however, of what will be done with these gains.
The ultimate objective is not merely to elect good people; we must also work to restore lost ground. Consider just a few examples of gun rights we have lost over the past few decades:
* The 1968 Gun Control Act instituted, among other things, the blatantly unconstitutional "sporting purposes" test, which stipulates that imported firearms must be "particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."
* Since 1976, the District of Columbia has been under a near total gun ban. The House voted this year to repeal the ban, but it died in the Senate.
* In 1986, the Congress banned the manufacture of machine guns for non-military and law enforcement. Anti-gunners use the argument the authors of the Constitution never envisioned full autos when they wrote the Second Amendment. Well, they probably never thought about radio, television and the Internet, either. Yet, no one would argue the First Amendment does not protect these.
* In 1993, the Congress passed the Brady background registration check. Now, citizens must go to the FBI to get permission to buy a firearm. This is nothing less than turning our Second Amendment "right" into a mere "privilege." Supporters of the law try to make it more palatable by pointing out that it is "instant" and hardly an inconvenience, as if expediency makes losing liberty acceptable.
* In 1996, the Congress passed the gun free zones law (prohibiting firearms within 1,000 feet of any school property) and the misdemeanor gun ban (lifetime gun ban for certain misdemeanor convictions).
These are just some of the unconstitutional laws GOA would like to repeal. GOA will also continue push for implementation of the armed pilots program and to pass a lawsuit protection bill for the firearms industry.
It is an ambitious agenda. How far we are able to move the ball in our direction, however, depends entirely on the GOA membership. Many gun owners mistakenly believe the battle is won in the election. That is only half the battle. The harder work still lies before us.
Gun owners must stay engaged in the battle by calling, writing, and e-mailing elected officials, urging them to roll back unconstitutional gun laws. And we need you to stand with us.
Renew your GOA membership today at www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm -- and work together with the organization that Rep. Ron Paul calls the "only no compromise gun lobby in Washington."
I understand in application it only applies (for the most part) to US citizens. But by saying that gun ownership, and all weapons ownership, is an inalienable right - then our government (as the actor) should not take any action infringing on any person's (citizen or not) of owning any arms. If nukes are included, then any individual should have the right to bear nukes.
In your hypothetical - our government should not do anything to PREVENT a republic from forming. These rights prevent the government from taking action, not requiring affirmative action.
Consider that shooting just a few of the worst domestic enemies of the Constitution would probably be sufficient.
Now, without the ability to defeat their helicopters, armored cars and body armor, how do you expect the concerned citizenry to accomplish that?
The answer is in the 2nd Amendment.
Like life insurance, I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
How about the fact that in almost every city with strict gun control has a much higher murder rate? THAT is good for society
Hunting aside, violent crimes in countries without gun ownership is much lower
That's liberal hogwash....look at Africa & Russia. You need to look at facts, not spew what the media incorrectly tells you.
I just personally see no need for it
When someone breaks into your home to kill you and/or your loved ones....then you come tell me if you have a need for it. Oh, wait.....call the police. After all they're the ones with the guns. They'll get there just in time to tape off the murder scene & photograph the lifeless bodies.
Again - I think that is either just a delusion that there is an actual threat - or relegated to the Bo Gritz's of the world. Who do you consider the worst domestic enemies of the Constitution? And who of those cannot be dealt with through our legal system?
If it applies to everyone, we can overthrow Castro, the Iranian mullahs and the Chinese Communists tomorrow.
And we didn't need any reason to oust Saddam. It's right there in the Constitution.
If the 2nd applies to everyone on earth, so does it require the U.S. Government to provide everyone on earth with a republican form of government.
Or maybe it just applies to U.S. citizens and it takes an act of the Congress to authorize taking on a foreign country.
You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you get to enforce.
How about the people who did this?
Bill Klinton said after the 1993 WTC bombing that it was a matter of law enforcement....worked well now, didn't it?
Look at Britain - that is a MUCH more accurate comparison given its level of technology and educated citizenery. The facts there bear out differently.
I'd like to see the data that compares similar cities and murder rates. That might be persuasive - although I have never seen such data that was not easily explained by other factors.
And I hate that argument with a passion - "When someone breaks into my home"...If a sniper shots me from a sidewalk as I am walking - a gun will do me no good. If my family gets in a car accident - I'll have no need for a gun. If I die of cancer - a gun will do me no good. These are all more probably acts that will occur. I'll take the .0001% chance.
Okay - how about the National Guard? Or the CIA or FBI? We have enacted reforms to fix what glaring holes existed.
Granted, I will give you if every person on that plane was allowed to carry a gun things might have been different. Of course, we don't know that because then the terrorists would have guns, also.
You hate it because it runs counter to your argument.
If a sniper shots me from a sidewalk as I am walking - a gun will do me no good
Here's the point you're missing.......being in possession of a gun, while not a panacea, affords one a chance to save ones own life. Not everyone wants or should have a gun, however law abiding citizens should have the right to make that decision themselves.
I'll take the .0001% chance
Tell me...WHAT are you so afraid of?
If gun ownership is sooo evil, where are all the news stories of LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS, killing people, hmm? You think the MSM would pass up that chance?
The Constitution is a restriction of the US government's power - that is always how it is interpretted and that is why I do believe the 2nd Amendment prevent gun control laws by the US government. Other governments never signed on to our Constitution. It doesn't not require the US government to affirmative promote those protections around the world.
My point was, if the right to bear arms is a right that goes beyond those just provided by the state (or an inalienable right), the Constituiton would prevent the US government from infringing that right to any person. It's not picking and choosing .
Really? Well, before you talk, take a look at this site & see just how many times that .0001% occurs.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
You are correct that aw-abiding gun owners are not the problem. My problem is, by examining other societies, the infuson of guns into society appear to have a negative effect.
But, again, I am defending your right to have one under our Constitution - I just do not think it is a right that comes from God.
Well - I know of now one personally that has had their home broken into and shot. No one ever in my family has either. So, based on personal experience, the chance is nill.
Religeous belief, or belief in a Higher Power is a personal issue and one that I think should be respected regardless.
The possibility that such a threat can arise is a sufficient reason to have the ability to deal with it.
I'm sure that the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto were wishing that they had had something like the 2nd Amendment. The fact that Adolph Hitler was elected should tell us that simply having a democratic system is no guarantee that our system will always work.
And I have no intent of naming names. I think that there are some government officials that for a very long time have abused their authority and have actively worked to corrupt the meaning of the Constitution.
I think that, currently, they are not of sufficient numbers to present an immediate threat that would require violence to correct. Our current system of elections, courts and legislation have something of a check on the worst offenders.
But should such a situation arise where an immediate threat materialized, I certainly want myself and my fellow citizens to have the means to combat it. As citizens, it is our government. It's our? responsibility, our duty to see that it works the way it is supposed to.
And the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure that I and my fellow citizens can do something about it if it goes haywire. As long as it's there, anyone who might think about a coup or some other nonsense will have to take that into consideration.
Without it, they can just march us all off to the re-education camps.
And yeah, it seems a bit far-fetched. But I'm sure that Jews of Germany in 1930, the Ukranians in 1915 or the Cambodians in 1970 probably considered genocide a bit far-fetched too.
Do you base all your decisions solely on your personal experience? Do you not believe "things" because you or others in your sphere of influence haven't personally witnessed them?
I won't own a gun. I won't allow a gun in my house. You can own a gun. I don't care if you own a gun - I just want my right to have a gun-free home and workplace (though that is because I really don't trust my coworkers ;) I am convinced many of them are crazy...)
But, you should be able to stock-pile all the weapons you want. That is what our Constitution guarantees you - sorry, but I won't ever own a gun as long as I live in what I believe is a safe, civilized area.
Perhaps - but the safeguards in those countries where not 1/1000th of the safeguards we have in this country. It would take someone so shrewd that we wouldn't even know it is happening. Our rights taken away bit-by-bit under the guise of something else. Even in that case, we have very good fallbacks.
And if it happens - I'll be the first in Belize ;P
So, if I'm to accept your premise that the 2nd applies to citizens of other countries, then the entire Constitution must as well and we better get busy overthrowing dictators.
But then, I don't happen to think that the 2nd, or any of the Constitution, applies to anyone beyond our borders.
And our courts seem to think that way too.
However, it does apply to me, and we need to get busy overturning 70 years of un-Constitutional gun laws.
Sorry - I don't think I was clear. There are rights are granted by the government, such as gun country. Then there are other rights, "human rights", that are universally applicable to all humans be the very nature of being human, such as political determination. The later is what I mean by "right that comes from God".
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.