Posted on 04/18/2003 3:25:56 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
What follows is an excerpt from a historical novel:
"Haven't seen a single Bush bumper sticker," Henry Bowman said calmly as he took another drink of his soda. John Parker nodded.
"No sh**. I think he's going to lose."
"Lose, hell," Henry said. "He's already thrown the election." Parker raised an eyebrow in a questioning gesture. Henry continued. "We'd've been much better off with Michael Dukakis, from a civil rights standpoint, at least."
"What do you mean?" This came from a slender man in a khaki shirt who had overheard the conversation.
"Bush banned semiauto imports by executive order in '89. Got his 'Drug Czar' buddy to say it was a wonderful idea. Could Dukakis have gotten away with that? Hell, no. He wouldn't have dared try it, because the Republicans in the House and Senate wouldn't have played ball. They'd have screamed bloody murder. Bush got away with it, though, 'cause he's a Republican, and now it's going to cost him the election."
"Come on, Henry," Parker said, forcefully but without rancor. "Bush has all kinds of problems. The economy is lousy, and people haven't forgiven him for breaking his 'no new taxes' promise."
"And let's face it," Karen Hill added, "a lot of voters, particularly women, don't like his anti-abortion stance. Those are the things that're going to end up costing him the Presidency." Henry Bowman was shaking his head. A crowd was starting to gather, but no one interrupted.
"I'll give you the taxes thing, but that's still only a small factor, and I'll prove it to you in a second. Your other issues are curtain dressing. Economy? The economy was terrible in 1982, and the public didn't turn against Ronald Reagan. Reagan was also at least as much against abortion as Bush, and more women voted for him than Carter in '80 or Mondale in '84. The reason George Bush will lose in three weeks is because he sold us out on gun rights." Henry Bowman and John Parker both saw a number of the people around them nodding in agreement. John Parker began to protest.
"That may be a part of it, but-"
"No 'buts', John. I'll prove it to you. Look around. How many guys do you see here right now who you know saw active duty and are proud of it? I don't mean everybody wearing camo--anyone can buy that at K-Mart. I mean guys wearing boonie hats and dog tags with their division numbers on' em, or guys in Gulf War uniforms, or old guys with tattoos and shrapnel wounds and arms missing. How many do you see around here right now? A lot, right?
"George Bush is a genuine war hero from the Second World War, right? And last year he got a half million men over to Iraq, ran Hussein out of Kuwait, and only lost- what? Eighty soldiers? That's less than I would expect would get killed in a half-million-man training exercise with no enemy." The people gathered around were nodding in agreement.
"So?" John Parker said.
"So Bush is a war hero--I really mean that--and look who he's running against. Should be no contest among vets proud of their military service, right?" Henry grinned wickedly at John Parker. "Just go around and ask some of these vets here if they're going to vote for the President in three weeks. Take your own poll."
"I'm not!" shouted a veteran of Korea who had been listening to Henry's argument. "Your friend's dead right."
"Me neither," spat another. "He sold us out." A half-dozen other veterans grunted in agreement. No one contradicted what Henry Bowman had said.
"Is anyone here--not just veterans, but anyone--planning to vote for Bush?" Henry asked in a loud voice. No one volunteered with an affirmative answer. John Parker's mouth opened in amazement.
"Too many Republicans have this crazy idea that since their party usually isn't quite as much in favor of throwing away the linchpin of the Bill of Rights, they can take our votes for granted," Henry said to what was now a crowd of forty or fifty people. "In a few weeks, they're going to find out that taking us for granted was the biggest mistake they ever made in their lives. Except that the news will undoubtedly focus on the abortion issue, or the bad economy, or how Bush didn't seem compassionate, or some other horse-sh**, and miss the real story."
"You really think we're the ones going to cost him the election?" a man in his fifties asked. "Not sayin' I disagree with you, but...everyone always acts like all the other issues are the real important ones. You know-the ones that get elections won or lost."
"Let me ask everyone here a question, then," Henry said. It was obvious he believed in what he was about to say.
"Pretend I'm George Bush, and it's Monday, the day after tomorrow. The first debate-which is tomorrow night-is over. I didn't say anything at all about the gun issue in the debate. It's now Monday, okay? Since I'm still the President, I tell the networks I'm going to give a State of the Union address, or a press conference, or whatever you call it on short notice. I'm going to give it that night, since the second debate isn't for a couple of days. I get up in front of the cameras, and here's the speech that goes out over every network Monday night." Henry looked over at John Parker. "Cut me some slack if I get some details wrong; I'm winging it here, okay?" He cleared his throat.
"My fellow Americans, I would like to address a serious issue which faces our country today: the gradual erosion of the individual rights of our honest citizens. Our government, including my administration, must shoulder much of the blame for this problem. It is time for me to acknowledge and repair the damage that has been done."
Henry paused for a moment to collect his thoughts before continuing.
"The Soviet Union has collapsed. People around the world are throwing off their yokes of oppression and tasting freedom for the first time. It is an embarrassing fact, how-ever, that our government has forgotten about individual rights here at home. It is time to acknowledge and correct the infringements we have inflicted upon our citizens in the name of 'crime control'.
"Decent, honest Americans are being victimized by a tiny fraction of the population, and it is our government's fault. It is our fault because we politicians have continually passed laws that stripped the law-abiding of their rights. As a result we have made the crime problem much worse.
"Our great economic power comes from the fact that Americans determine their own economic destiny. It is time we let Americans once again determine their own physical destiny." Henry Bowman saw the audience hanging on his words. He took a breath and went on.
"In 1989 I prohibited importation of firearms mechanically and functionally identical to weapons made before the Wright Brothers' invention of the airplane in 1903. I hoped that banning these guns would reduce crime. It hasn't. The only people denied the weapons that I banned are those citizens in our country who obey our laws. These are not the people our government should punish, and I now see what a terrible decision that was. "Some politicians are now calling for a national 5-day waiting period to purchase a handgun. The riots last spring showed us the tragedy of that kind of policy. One congressman has even introduced a bill to repeal the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The Bill of Rights enumerates human rights, it does not grant them. That is something that we in government have forgotten. Repealing the Second Amendment would not legitimize our actions any more than repealing the Fifth Amendment would authorize us to kill whoever we wanted."
Henry noticed several people smile at the notion of George Bush acknowledging his responsibility for government intrusions in a State of the Union address.
"All dictatorships restrict or prohibit the honest citizen's access to modern small arms. Anywhere this right is not restricted, you will find a free country.
"There is a name for a society where only the police have guns. It is called a police state. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is not about duck hunting, any more than the First Amendment is about playing Scrabble. The entire Bill of Rights is about individual freedom.
"In my recent trip to St. Louis, Missouri, I found that violent criminals have a government guarantee that honest people are unarmed if they're away from their homes or businesses. It's a felony for a citizen to carry a gun for protection. Giving evil, violent people who ignore our laws a government guarantee that decent people are completely helpless is terrible public policy. It is dangerous public policy. Our Federal and State governments have betrayed the honest citizens of this country by focusing on inanimate objects instead of violent criminal behavior, and I am ashamed to have been a party to it. It is time to correct that betrayal.
"Accordingly, I am lifting the import ban on weapons with a military appearance, effective immediately. I am abandoning any and all proposals to ban honest citizens from owning guns or magazines that hold more than a certain number of cartridges. I will veto any bill that contains any provision which would make it illegal, more difficult, or more expensive for any honest citizen to obtain any firearm or firearm accessory that it is now lawful for him to own. I will also encourage the removal of laws currently in effect which punish honest adults for mere ownership or possession of weapons or for paperwork errors involving weapons. I will work to effect repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934 in their entirety.
"Tomorrow I will appoint a task force to investigate abusive practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I will ask for recommendations as to how that department can be made to shift its focus from technical and paperwork errors to violent criminal activity. I will demand the resignations of all agents and supervisors who have participated in any entrapment schemes or planting of evidence.
"Our government has betrayed its citizens and tomorrow morning I intend to start correcting that. Good night."
Screams of "Yeah!," "Damn right!," and "That's it!" came amidst tremendous applause from the several dozen people who had been standing around listening.
"Okay, that's the speech," Henry said in his normal voice after the applause had died down. He did not notice the look on John Parker's face. "Then, the next morning on the news, you see that Bush has indeed rescinded the import ban, he's named the people on the Task Force, and he's fired Bill Bennett. A couple of senators have offered to draft legislation repealing the National Firearms Act and GCA '68, and you hear Bush say on camera that he's all for it, and you hear him encourage other legislators to support this much-needed reform.
"Question number one: What are all of you going to do now?"
"Do everything we can to get George Bush re-elected!" one man yelled immediately. He was joined by a dozen similar responses. Henry Bowman laughed.
"Not bad. And we haven't even asked question number two, and it's the real clincher: If George Bush gave the speech I just gave and did the things I just described, how many people who were already going to vote for him do you think would change their minds? How many people do you think would say 'Boy, I was going to vote for Bush, but now I'm not going to'?"
"Nobody," John Parker said under his breath. "Anyone who didn't like your speech would already be against the President." John Parker was thinking frantically.
"Exactly. So he picks up four or five million votes, and loses none."
Why wait? You have so many options available right now. For example, you could move to Berzerkely, or Sodom Francisco, or just about anywhere in Oregon, or Canada (the further east, the hotter the water), or England etc.
But you won't. You want to foul our nest by staying and squatting on your ungrateful heinie on it.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I dunno, Kev. All those places hate guns, and have draconian gun laws...they sound like your kind of places.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You're absolutely right. I've made no secret about Bush losing my support when he signed CFR. As we speak, there's a thread on FReep about Marc Racicot pandering (sucking up to?) to the queers, trying to convince them that the Pubbies are their best friends. Then there's the "Patriot" Act, growth of government, failure to fight for his conservative judicial nominees, and far too many other issues to go into, that have conservatives pi**ed off at the man they voted for in 2000. Kinda blows the lid off of the whole "single issue voter" thing, eh?
Signing an AWB extension isn't the only reason many of us will vote for a 3d Party candidate, or just spend election day at the range, but it's a big one. For many, it's the straw (or the 2x12) that broke the camel's back. We conservatives are screwed one way or the other...Coke/Pepsi, Pubbie/Rat, Commielib/Commielib Light. At least we'll have our principles to stand on.
I find myself asking the same question I asked about his father back in '92...does he want to lose the election?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I hate to break it to you, newbie, but God did grant us the right to defend ourselves, and our freedom. The Constitution guarantees that right, and the right to the tools we need to ensure we can defend ourselves. I'll go easy on you, since you're a newbie, and simply say you need to think about what you've written before you click the "Post" button.
Oh...I see you're from Maryland...that explains a lot. You guys have never seen a firearm you liked.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Great quote, Kevin...recognize it? It's from your profile page.
Right now is the time when we could win this fight relatively easily and without bloodshed. All we need is for you RINOs to join with us conservatives, and pressure Bush and the RINOs into understanding that we will not stand idly by while he/they legislate our Constitution away. Let them know that we expect them to fight for the rights of those who supported them, and put them in office. This can be done now, if you RINOs would only realize that we conservatives would like to be on the same team with you, but will not tolerate being taken for granted. This can be done now, or we could get to Churchill's point where bloodshed is inevitible, and where it's better to die than be a slave.
I'm sure you understood all this before you posted it on your profile page, right?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Actually, that's yourself.
The only message the Bush Administration is sending 2A supporters is, "Screw you."
The only message Bush has gotten from many alleged conservatives was "screw you."
How the heck can you reconcile Ashcroft's lip-service to the 2A and Bush's vocal support for this ban?
1. This isn't Bush, it's a spokesman (spokesperson, person of spoke) who can be disowned in a heartbeat.
2. The purpose of this exercise is to lay down the Rules Of Engagement. Bush has said that if (big word there, pay attention) a bill renewing the assault weapons ban reaches his desk, he won't veto it.
Translation: he ain't going to cut his throat to appease people too damn lazy to help themselves BEFORE it gets to his desk, as they're likely to be too lazy to actually vote in November, anyway.
Do you really think that, after Bush's stated support, all the other spineless middle-seeking Republicans aren't going to support it as well?
Bush has a unique problem that Congress does not have. That problem is that Bush is a single person, as opposed to 535 people.
Congress is in a far better position to take heat from the DNC, because that heat would be spread out across many members of Congress instead of being focused on one and ONLY one person.
If you really think that the cause is now doomed, then you deserve to lose.
If he loses because of a furor over AWB, GOOD.
Well, if Bush loses over the AWB because he vetoed it, that's NOT good.
And if he loses because he doesn't veto it, it's still NOT good.
Sends a message to the Republican leadership.
Yeah. If he vetoes the bill, and loses because of that...the GOP will abandon the 2A folks instantly, and you will be permanently frozen out of politics.
Generate the votes. Forget your shooting buddies; convince moderates to oppose the AWB, because that 20% is where elections are won and lost. If you can't be bothered to do that, stop the bill in the Congress. If you can't be bothered to do that, either, then kindly (STFU)2.
You broke the code.
Many of these people claim to have supported Bush in 2000. I find their claims suspect at best.
So you'll comment anyway.
BUT, what we here in the rest of the country heard, Simon took a hard left after he got the nomination and began championing queer rights, benefits for "domestic partners", and other BS Commielib issues.
False.
The unappeasables out here LIED about Simon's positions based on ONE survey they sent him that got sent back in record time--far faster than any other survey. They may have had some help inside the campaign, because the usual folks who check over an issue group's survey and the campaign's official response never saw the thing. They were completely blindsided, and they could not find out who'd actually sent the response back.
This is the penalty of alienating your base, just as what happened in the NJ governor's race.
No, this is the penalty for actually getting nominated in place of the advocacy group's anointed one.
This happens so damn often in California that I'm convinced that many of the allegedly "pro-life," "pro-family," and "pro-gun" advocacy groups out here are actually front groups created by the Democratic Party with a useful idiot as a figurehead. They can be relied on to endorse a zero-hope third party candidate and kill the conservative vote.
If you RINOs thumb your noses at we conservatives, we'll shut you out of office.
I'm not a RINO. I'm a conservative interested in actually getting things done, unlike you.
If our choice is Socialist and Socialist Light, bring on the Rats, and let's get to the shooting that much quicker.
Thanks for explaining your agenda.
Folks who spout off about how they want armed revolt to come "that much quicker" on a public website are either (a) really f***ing stupid, or (b) working for the BATF.
Which one is it?
Drat! You figured us out! We "one issue, wacko, fringe, extremist, gun nuts" should've known better than to try to sneak our Commielib, pro-fag, pro-police state, anti-Constitution ways past ol' Poohbah, I tell ya what! /sarcasm
Uh, Earth to Pooh-Bear, we're the ones supporting the Constitution. Which is more conservative, demanding that our Constitution be upheld, or playing political games with it in order to keep a Pubbie in office?
"Folks who spout off about how they want armed revolt to come "that much quicker" on a public website are either (a) really f***ing stupid, or (b) working for the BATF.
Which one is it?"
Shucks! We just can't get anything past you, can we, you ol' Pooh-Stick, you? You know, you're not nearly as smart or funny as you evidently think you are. If this were 1775, would you have accused Sam Adams, Capt. Parker, and his minutemen, and others of being "really f***ing stupid", or agents of the Crown? I believe you would.
So, if I'm so "f***ing stupid", why not give me the benefit of your vast, untapped knowledge, and tell me how, in light of the current "go along to get along", New Tone philosophy of the Pubbie Party, we'll ever get started:
- rolling back the decades of encroaching Socialism,
- scrapping the regressive tax system we have,
- fixing the infringements upon the 1st, 2d, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments we've witnessed in our lifetimes,
- end the assault on the family and the institution of marriage that Kalifornia has been at the forefront of,
- others?
Are you praying that the Pubbie RINOs will come to some massive, co-ordinated moment of levity, and realize they've been heading down the path of destructiuoon, all in the name of trying to win more Commielib voters? Well, prayer always helps, but I think you're betting on a losing hand. Are you counting on some unknown, dark horse leader to come from out of no where and heroically lead the party back from the edge of the cliff, and thereby avert the massive disaster that's looming over the horizon? Or are you simply playing ostrich, burying your head in the sand and singing your version of the Bobby McFerrin song, "Don't Worry, Be Happy (As Long As A Pubbie's In Office)"?
Or maybe, you don't find anything wrong with the path the Pubbies have been on since Bush I's reign. Hmmmmmm...but that couldn't be right. After all you say you're a conservative...
To answer your question, I'm neither f***ing stupid nor a BATF agent. I'm not a DU disruptor, a closet Rat, or any other ad hominem insult you can come up with. I am however, apparently a bit more concerned about what's happening to our Constitution than you are. I guess I'm just not a politician, but a concerned, conservative citizen. That would make you...what? Not so concerned? Not so Conservative? A politician? I'll resist commenting on the lack of intelligence you disply with your vulgar, insulting responses.
By the way, Winnie the Poobah, for those of you who don't seem to be too concerned about the unraveling of our Constitution, I bet there's a great American Idol chat going on somewhere.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
It took over 50 years for things to get as screwed up as they got by 1994. We've made some progress--and we've lost some, too. Them's the breaks.
We ain't going to build the New Jerusalem in a day--and, if we let folks like you captain the team, it won't EVER get built, because you'll just PO the electorate. (Unless, of course, you simply want to abolish those pesky elections--after all, YOU know so much better than the "sheeple" do, right?)
To answer your question, I'm neither f***ing stupid nor a BATF agent.
With what you posted, those are the only two options. Pick one.
"So you'll comment anyway."
Damn right I will.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.