Posted on 07/31/2008 4:41:40 AM PDT by marktwain
For the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, U.N. gun-ban extremist Rebecca Peters and her globalist billionaire sugar-daddy George Soros, for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his horde of big-city politicians—in fact, for all those individuals and organizations who would harm or destroy our Second Amendment rights—Barack Obama’s mantra of “change” means their agenda will be harnessed to the total power of an aggressive, activist and radical federal government.
“Change” means gun owners will be under siege like never before.
Especially for NRA members who fought through the never-ending threats of the Clinton-Gore administration, the understanding of “change” must be the driving force for us to get other gun owners to the polls. This election is critically important. We cannot afford to have any friend of the Second Amendment sit it out, regardless of the reason.
We all know gun owners who are disillusioned with politics. Those influenced by talk of four years of “progressives” in power coalescing a united conservative movement must be reminded that this November, we are not just electing a president, we are electing an entire government.
With Obama’s emphasis on grassroots organizing, his administration will be a government redesigned and realigned to stay in power. It will be a government converted into a political machine. And with a so-called “progressive” majority in both houses of Congress, there will be little to stop that power shift.
When Obama talks about “change,” the gun-banners at the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign know exactly what change they want—inside power. And they’ll likely get it.
Michelle Obama, in a politically charged college campaign speech in California, defined her husband’s meaning of “change”:
“Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual ...”.
As NRA members, this statement doesn’t bode well for our future. Our “lives as usual” means the daily exercise of our freedom.
And what of “cynicism”? It is the very basis of Americans’ long history of questioning government power and its abuse. It is the basis of challenging dissembling politicians. Cynicism is the key to seeing through politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton, who falsely wrap themselves in the Second Amendment while espousing dangerous programs for civil disarmament.
And “division”? As NRA members, our “division” from the likes of Obama means we stand together and fight every day against those who would destroy the bedrock principles that have made our country the freest in the world. Divisiveness is the basis of our democratic institutions. Division based on principle is a noble thing.
“Comfort zone”? What about the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence? That is the real “comfort zone” of all Americans. We are the only nation on earth built on the principle of “pursuit of happiness.” That means we do not serve government; it serves us.
The “change” Obama and his close allies—like George Soros’ Moveon.org —seek is a complete regime change driven by a radical political agenda. For the nation’s gun owners, “change” will take the form of many steps back to the bad old days of the Clinton-Gore years or the Jimmy Carter years, when bureaucrats in a dozen agencies were relentless in their schemes to press a hostile presidential agenda against gun ownership.
For gun owners, “change” could well mean an erosion of hard-fought reforms and hard-fought protections we have secured over the years. Those reforms represent battles won by gun owners led by NRA since the founding of the Institute for Legislative Action in 1975.
“Change” means removing the restrictions we secured against the Consumer Product Safety Commission from exercising a bureaucratic ban on firearms or ammunition based on phony “consumer hazard” criteria. This is something the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have vainly sought for years.
... we are not just electing a president, we are electing an entire government
“Change” means ignoring the strictures imposed on federal gun-control enforcement by Congress, like preventing “firearms trace data” from being delivered into the hands of big-city lawyers to fuel punitive lawsuits to strangle the lawful firearms industry. This is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s dream, and it is the “change” demanded by his gun-ban axis of urban politicians.
“Change” means an effort to erase all of the reforms of federal gun laws created when Congress enacted the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. That law ended a reign of terror by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that, for gun owners and civil libertarians, was the shameful hallmark of the Jimmy Carter presidency.
“Change” means that federal lawyers from multiple agencies with unlimited taxpayer funding will find “creative” ways to bring elements of the law-abiding firearm industry to court, circumventing the restrictions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. As a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama voted against that law, which was designed to end punitive lawsuits claiming firearm industry liability based on totally unrelated acts of armed, violent criminals.
For those who don’t remember, in the waning days of the Bill Clinton presidency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with the U.S. Department of Justice, used the threat of scores of separate lawsuits in many federal venues by city housing authorities to extort a supposedly “voluntary” gun-control agreement from firearm manufacturers. If Obama becomes president, you can bet the farm that bureaucrats will once again use these threats to obtain strictures that Congress would never enact.
In fact, among key advisors chosen by Obama to vet possible running mates is Eric Holder, who was Attorney General Janet Reno’s top deputy. Holder, as the Justice Department point man on all gun-control schemes, was among the top officials announcing the Clinton-Gore extortion agreement in 2000.
I always thought gun control advocates should be bold enough to put a large sign on their front lawn that states, “There are no guns in this house.”
Has not Obama forgotten that the Second Admendment question has been “settled” not that long ago by the Supremes.
?
That b!tch controls osamabama.
LLS
Interesting allegation, but what is the source? Imputing such intentions without confirmation is not viable political discourse.
That “Come And Take It” flag is evidence, contrary to what many allegedly pro-RKBA people claim, that the Founding Fathers intended the 2ndA to include much more than man-portable single-user small arms.
FOPA ‘86 did a great deal to protect RKBA. Unfortunately, the Hughes Amendment (aka 922(o)) was added as a “poison pill” to either kill the bill or kill MG ownership; given the options and political realities, the NRA opted for the latter. Sometimes choosing the best option means accepting the lesser of two evils. Some theorized that accepting the MG ban was tolerable because it could so easily be overturned in court shortly thereafter; unfortunately, it was never suitably challenged and turned into a social “third rail” issue.
The confiscations also came to an abrupt halt when it was made clear, behind the scenes, that many of the police departments involved in Katrina recovery were not going to let such atrocities continue.
The 1986 machinegun ban was added to the GOPA by a shady voice vote engineered by the infamous “Tip” O’Neal after the reforms had been forced through by the NRA. I have tape of it somewhere, I watched it on CSPAN. It was truly disgraceful. If there ever was a horrific abuse of parliamentary procedure, this was it.
Thanks for the info guys...
It's been a long time and my memory is not what it used to be, however, I recall the Antichrist in the “Left Behind” series being very much like Obama - his personal charm, manipulation of people, speech patterns, etc.
Is there anyone out there who recalls what I describe? It is scary. I'm thinking of finding another copy and reviewing it to see if my recollection is on target.
Yes We must all pull together and protect our God given rights! http://my.att.net/p/PWP-freedomfirst
Hold your nose. Vote for McCain.
Can I get a bumper sticker with that message?
These totalitarian bastards just never quit, do they?
Yes, they do quit, and sometimes even get converted. David Horowitz was pretty high up in leftist circles when he had is “road to damascus” moment and became a conservative.
Mike Royco was a staunchly anti-gun for most of his career, but became a fan of the 2nd Amendment just a few years before he died.
Al Capp became disenchanted with liberalism, and the cartoon strip “Lil’ Abner” started having conservative themes late in his career.
Still, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” is as true as it ever was.
“That’s not the Michele I knew...”
For Obama,
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos of the
Munchkin Wrangler blog
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
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.