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.
That’s my take on the Second.
Second Amendment includes mounting 6 or 8 Brownings in your P-51 Mustang if you can afford to feed them. It also includes putting a rocket pod or two on your kid helicopter if you can safely do so.
It also means walking the streets of New York City with an M4A1 slung around your shoulder, without a cop being able to do a thing.
There’s nothing right-leaning about a fascist.
As long as I have something in my hands, with plenty to feed it with, I’ll cover whoever.
“Ve haf our vays ov b-r-r-r-reaking you!”
CA....
I have one friend who is supporting Obama (go figure), BUT he is adamant about his second amendment rights. I'd really like the source information before I start dropping this on him.
Yes, it occurred to me and from what I read here on FR, it has occurred to many others.
All of it illegal.
Bout time for some tree watering and pruning, isn’t it?
Pretty much if you can afford to own and maintain it, why shouldn’t you have it?
And no, I really don’t think that the dude in the trailer park down the highway can really afford to own and maintain toxic chemical weapons or radioactive devices. If he could he certainly wouldn’t do it in his back yard!
You mean you don’t implicitly trust the NRA-ILA to offer unbiased and objective information?
I do believe that the first place we should go is to the courtrooms but if our courtrooms become so infected with socialists and corrupted with communists that they cannot protect our rights then it is up to us to protect them. If this requires fighting for them so be it. That’s why the Founders wrote the Original Amendments.
......, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” ..........it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Thomas Jefferson, 1776.
Using man-portable single-user small arms, everything else is available.
Everyone has an agenda. I just want to be clear on my facts.
After 8 years, it become a second amendment 'reset' button issue.
I have already seen Becks video. Thanks
That's right. Paul Revere and Dr. Dawson did not shout, "The British Are Coming!". The shouted "The Regulars Are Coming!".
And what they were coming for was the colonial Englishmen's guns! Taxation without representation was a sore point, but the fight didn't start until the regulars instituted gun confiscation.
The New Orleans "Boys in Blue", aided by cops from all over, and the National Guard, have already done that. But nobody shot at any of the confiscators! Even after federal courts ordered the confiscated guns returned NOPD refused to do so, and most of the guns are now piles of rust, some even showing evidence of salt water corrosion. Only plastic and stainless steel survived more or less intact. And yet, no one in the NOPD, or those other organziatioins has gone to jail, or even lost their job.
Most of the dirty work had already been done by the Wiemar Republic politicians. All that was left were some "special" laws pertaining mostly to Jews.
The Machine Gun ban was one line or so out of several pages of the law. It was a literally last minute amendment. It was never debated in the House, and there are only a couple of lines in the Congressional Record that mention it in the Senate debates over the bill. It's not clear if President Reagan even knew it was in the bill when he signed it.
But there was lots of good stuff in the bill. A "right to transport" provsion aimed at states which ban a particular gun or require a license for possession from enforcing those laws against people merely transporting guns through their jurisdiction. A removal of the record keeping requirement for purchase of "handgun ammunition" (I remember using my military ID to purchase a few boxes of .22 short that I put through my wife's grandfather's little Browning rifle). Restoration of the ability to purchase ammunition interstate (ie mail order), and host of other things.
For a good, if a bit "legalistic" and "historic" discussion of the FOPA of 1986 see "THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE" by David T. Hardy[*] .
But nobody did... fight another day, that is.
Retreat in the face of superior force is often the smart thing to do. But then one must concentrate ones own forces and counter attack. Constant retreat, or even being always on the defensive, leads to certain defeat.
“If you’re not a NRA member you should be.”
If you don’t have a semi-auto “assault rifle” and 5,000 rds of ammunition for it, you should.
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.