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."
Couldn't come up with anything better than that? I'm disappointed! After all, I put so much thought into my last post to you.
By the same logic, judging from your profile page, you think you're Homer Simpson. Again, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are, and you're continually proving it. But you know what Limbaugh says (well, maybe you don't), when someone's making an idiot of themselves, the best thin to do is stand back and let 'em. So go ahead...
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Amen, these people are blooming idiots. They're simply stating that they'll vote for a gun grabbing democrat because Bush won't let me have my ak-47.
I'm willing to bet the answer is "no."
Rove's sending you a message. He's telling you that if you ain't willing to work, Bush ain't willing to risk his neck for your alleged vote. Kill it in Congress--do NOT expect the President to commit political hari-kari for you.
Correct. and wonderfully concise.....
Considering their avowed use of the vote, I would say the former.
God is all for allowing us to defend ourselves. In today's society, we need guns to defend ourselves from both criminals, who have guns, and potential tyrants, who have armies, who have lots of guns. The Constitution recognizes our need to have the tools (guns) necessary to defend ourselves from those who have similar tools (guns). Is that clear now?
I just kind of assumed you knew that the Declaration of Independance is where it's acknowledged that our rights come from Our Creator. God is my Creator...maybe yours is the Maryland State Legislature, I don't know. But, as the Declaration says, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them (ie, not limited to) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Do Maryland government schols teach civics and history anymore? If not, I'd be glad to recomend some good texts to you...oh, sorry...texts are books.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Actually, I'm working to get it killed in committee, let alone before it goes up for a vote.
But you go right ahead and sit on your a$$ (I know you talk about writing for no renewal; but talk is cheap, unless you're hiring a lawyer), and then throw a hissy fit because your Sitzkrieg failed miserably.
People like you, frankly, don't deserve freedom, because that's too much like work for your taste.
There is a small problem with your reasoning.
Edwierd will not win the Nomination, so who is it that the south will throw over Bush for...Sharpton, Kerry, or Howard Dean?
That Karl Rove does indeed read SunTzu .....
And VPC does not.
A key Sun Tzu principle is that "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Seems like there are a hundred of so people on FR who didn't vote for the President the last time who are going to vehemently oppose him the next time. How could we have expected this?
I'm beginning to think the term Bushbot means anyone who can't find five new reasons NOT to vote for Bush by noon each day.
The people you are arguing with are long on attitude, and short on intellect, and ......
While arguing with them is kinda like masturbating with a cheese grater (...Slightly Amusing...but mostly painful...) getting them to reason is quixotic at best.
you're right, they're wrong. Deal with it.
In the first a thief is "found breaking up," that is, breaking in by breaking up the roof, the window, or the door during the night hours. Thus we have a forced entry into the house (or property) that is discovered by the owner. The owner responds to this threatening situation (for in the dark he knows not the intent, identity, or arms of the intruder) by killing the robber, presumably with some sort of weapon. The declaration of God's law is that in these circumstances the owner is innocent of any wrongdoing, and is fully justified in using lethal force to defend himself and his family.
The second instance involves a thief "breaking up" under different circumstances. In this case, it is during the daylight hours, and presumably, the owner can identify the intentions of the intruder and see that he is unarmed and poses no threat to life or limb, but is a mere thief. Yet, in spite of this the owner kills the thief. In these circumstances the owner who uses lethal force is guilty of a crime. This was not an act of self-defense (for he was not attacked or threatened) but an act of brutality against an unarmed man whose only intention was the theft of property. The penalty for theft was restitution, not death. Thus, this is a case of the unauthorized taking of human life, and is, therefore, murder, punishable by death. God's law authorizes the protection of life by deadly force if necessary, but His law does not permit the defense of property in the same manner.
It is important to note that the case presented here of a thief breaking in involves the shedding of blood. Therefore, this case law is an application of the righteousness of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Consequently, the biblical law of self-defense empowers us to defend our lives against wicked men who hate God, His law, and the life of their neighbor.
We may assume that those who threaten us with bodily harm or weapons hold the life God has given us in contempt, and, therefore, we may defend ourselves against such evil even to the point of killing our assailant.
In conclusion, let us consider the implications of Exodus 22:2-3 for the right of self-defense.
1.This case law establishes the righteousness of self-defense. God's law permits a man to defend himself and his family. This defense may require the use of deadly force, and this certainly implies the use of weapons.
2.A man is justified in defending himself whenever he is attacked or his life endangered. If a man is not guilty of any crime for slaying an intruder on the mere supposition that he may be armed or pose a threat to him or his family, how much more does the law of God authorize self-defense against an armed assailant who definitely threatens bodily harm.
3.The primary responsibility for defense against violent attacks is a personal responsibility. The defense of one's life and one's family is chiefly an individual responsibility, not a community or governmental responsibility. (There is no indication that Israel had a standing police force or army. The armed men of Israel, under the direction of their magistrates, were the army and police force.) There is certainly a need to love our neighbor and come to his defense if we can. But the first line of defense against violence and aggression is the man who is prepared to use whatever force necessary in the protection of his own life and those for whom he is responsible (e.g., his family). This, of course, means that he must be armed to meet all possible threats to his life. Today, this requires a citizen to be armed with guns.
4.Any weapon is permissible for use in self-defense. This case law does not say the owner is guilty if he uses a sword, but not guilty if he uses a club. The issue is not one of weapons, but the right of self-defense. God's law does not make an arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable weapons for self-defense. And there are no biblical laws restricting the access of citizens to weapons necessary for self-defense. To limit a citizen's access to lethal weapons (e.g., guns) is to limit his ability for self-defense. Gun control is self-defense control. Who would want to control and limit the individual's ability to defend himself except thugs and tyrants?
5.This case law would be a great deterrence to criminals. After all, citizens are armed and authorized to kill, if necessary, intruders and attackers!
6.This case law also restrains the individual in the use of weapons in self-defense. He must be very careful, lest he use deadly force when it is not called for. If he does he is guilty of a crime, and must pay with his own life.
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.