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.
What so you think about fighting back?
Swiped for emailing.
Wayne LaPierre,
If the NRA’s poster, http://www.nraila.org/images/obamachange.jpg is representative of the truth and not just some political trash Obama type “Change” means there is going to be a lot of blood spilt in American government offices as defenders of the Constitution once again take charge..
Good luck getting the so called ‘purists’ to go along with that. They would rather have Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot elected president of this country because, according to them, it will surely mean that for the next election we will be blessed with the second coming of Ronald Reagan and the rebirth of the conservative movement. Never mind that in the meanwhile this country will become unrecognizable and so far gone that any attempt to restore our liberties will take decades.
The way I see it, anyone who is so naive to think that a McCain presidency would be just as bad as an Obama one is certifiably insane, and anyone actually hoping for an Obama presidency for the reasons I stated above is living in fantasy world.
You seem to be of the impression that Obama gives a hoot about what the Constitution says. You would be very mistaken . Obama lusts for power & with the aid of the Democrats in Congress this nation will in fact be changed into a fascist police state.
“What so you think about fighting back?”
I’d like to think I would fight, but when I saw the video I realized it was hopeless. The police used overwhelming force with no warning. If you resisted you WOULD have been killed. Perhaps better to lose a battle and live to fight another day?
Most of America is not like New Orleans. The good and decent citizens of New Orleans were overwhelmed by a terrible storm as well as by bad government and the free-range criminal element that supports it. Most American communities are thankfully not dominated by drunken layabouts on welfare or hopelessly corrupt public officials, and I promise you: any Federal attempt to confiscate our guns will be met with armed resistance.
They is why they will eliminate it.
________________________________________________________
A profound statement. Their mindset is embodied in the definition of a “government” as those that hold a “monopoly of force” when such a monopoly has never really existed.
All governments at all times are based on a *balance* of force, no matter how lopsided it might be.
Well, I hope they reconsider. Other than Rudy, McCain was my very last choice.
But there’s maybe a chance with McCain that we can save the country. There is none with Obama. Four years of hussein obama with a pelosi/reid congress, and America is screwed.
Hell, we’re still trying to correct the New Deal and the Great Society.
ping
Careful on that underlined one! We are so infiltrated with gubmint informers, any talk of resistance just might bring about the type of scrutiny Weaver recieved!
It's either that, or the "poor" had better start assimilating, and paying their fair share.
BTW ... both those flags are A1.
I may have to just get that "Come And Take It" flag.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
Good idea
Watch the video. Very scary: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12142/
It’s a Texas thing.
National Guard
After that, I can’t say anything else.
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.