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."
"The only message Bush has gotten from many alleged conservatives was "screw you."
Yep, you're right. I wrote the words "screw you" right next to his name on my absentee ballot, right after I colored in his box. I voted for him to say "screw you". Real bright, guy.
"1. This isn't Bush, it's a spokesman (spokesperson, person of spoke) who can be disowned in a heartbeat."
Well, it's been a week and a half, and no disavowal. If he spoke without Bush's permission, he'd be looking for a job right now.
"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."
No one writes more letters, makes more calls, or sends more e-mails to their Congresscritters than the RKBA community. Any gun owner would know this, so what does that say about you, hmmmm? I bet you've never fired a gun, and just wish they'd go away, huh?
"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."
And our Pubbie Congresscritters have so much backbone, don't they, Chuckles? I mean, that's why Klinton was removed from office in 1999, and our nuke weapons secrets weren't sold to China, and the "Patriot" Act failed to pass, and CFR was struck down, and we're enjoying the economic prosperity that Bush's meaningful, immediate tax cuts gave us, and our borders have been effectively closed by military patrols, and all the H-1B and L-1 visa hlders have been sent packing back to India and Pakistan, and...oh crap. I forgot, our spineless Congresscritters let all that stuff go on. Do you think they'll have the guts, two months before an election and in the face of the merciless media full-court press, to stand up, do the right thing, and allow the AWB to sunset? Man, if we were at the poker table, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat...after raising you big time!
"If you really think that the cause is now doomed, then you deserve to lose."
Okay, I'll say this really slowly, since you've evidently not understood what we "gun nuts" have been saying all along. Ahem...WE...LOSE...NO...MATTER...WHO...WINS...BECAUSE...BOTH
...PARTIES...ARE...TAKING...AWAY...OUR...SECOND...
AMENDMENT...RIGHTS...AND...ADVANCING...A...COMMIELIB...AGENDA. There...do you now understand that we conservatives are in a lose-lose position?
"Many of these people claim to have supported Bush in 2000. I find their claims suspect at best."
And the Great Pooh-Bear, the all knowing, all seeing, swami of the smarmy has spoken! He sees that the RKBA community actually didn't vote for Bush in 2000! He sees that it was, in fact, the union coal miners in West Virginia, and the retired "give me more" old folks in Florida, and the welfare suckoffs in Tennessee, who actually won the election for Bush! Sheesh...
"Rolling back socialism involves a concept that is apparently rather alien to a lot of conservatives. It's called "work."
As I've established many, many times already, rolling back Socialism apparently involves not voting for the Pubbies or the Rats. Maybe you're new to "working" to roll back Socialism in the GOP, but a heckuva lot of us have been doing it for 15 years or longer now, and we've gotten to the point that we're not going to write one more letter, make one more long-distance phone call, or even send one more e-mail. After years of banging our heads against the wall, trying to get the Pubbies to listen to our concerns about not only the RKBA, but a multitude of other issues, many of us are tired of the constant headaches. If it takes getting their butts un-elected to get a message through to the RINOs in DC (and Kalifornia), maybe that'll help. Until then, you need us, we don't need you.
Speaking of work, I have an appointment to go out on, so I'll give you a few hours to figure out how to respond rationally and logically, and leave the vulgar insults out. Good luck, Pooh-bear!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Wrong on all counts.
As for the RKBA community allegedly being the most communicative...please quit reading the NRA's self-congratulatory propaganda. The RKBA community goes through ups and downs in their activism, alternating full-bore campaigns with navel-gazing. And most of it is in connection with the NRA's own efforts; anyone who thinks the NRA is not sufficiently pure enough for them to get involved is likely to not be involved with any effort at all.
They're also the most organized, and most effective.
But their constituency is also prone to bouts of purist navel-gazing instead of effective action.
Witness the reaction you sometimes see to Project Exile.
However, NRA and GOA reps have recently mentioned interest in this ban, so it's on the agenda for grassroots campaigns by both orgs.
OK, with that in mind...if the NRA is "vey series" about this, and can keep the troops in the fight--not a sure-fire bet with some of the perfectionists out there--look for the following to happen:
1. Democrats, emboldened by Bush's comments, make a full-court press.
2. Renewal either dies in committee or gets poison-pill amendments that gut it. Some inchoate anger on anti-gunners' side of the aisle, but without a single evildoer to focus on, it dies before 11/04.
3. NRA gets out vote in November 2004. Democrats clobbered six ways to Sunday.
But if the RKBA single-issue voters insist on making Bush take all of the heat on himself with a veto, they lose no matter what. The "inchoate anger" now has a single person to focus on. That means that the issue gains traction. In salvaging his base vote, Bush is forced to write off the moderate middle that equates "assault weapon ban" with "outlawing machine-guns." If he wants the "radical middle," he loses a large chunk of his base.
Either (a) kill it in Congress, or (b) get out there NOW and ensure that plenty of moderate voters understand what the" assault weapons ban" is and is not actually about, and what it means for them.
Please tell me you're not really that hopeless. I never said God was against the AWB. I said He's given us the right to defend ourselves, and the Founding Fathers, realizing that we need modern weapons of the day (that means Brown Bess muskets back then, M-16s or other military rifles today) in order to defend ourselves from those tyrants who would try to take our freedom. Read this over several times before you send your next post.
"You then did a wonderful impression of Bill Clinton by referring me first to the Constitution (which you later acknowledged was not a religious document) and then to the Declaration of Independence, which states that the Creator gives us rights."
Do they still teach reading in Maryland? I said 1)God gives us the right to defend ourselves, and 2) the Constitution guarantees that right. It is in the Declaration that it's acknowledged that our rights come from God, and that to protect those rights, which come from God, governments (our Constitution) are instituted among men. That means the right to protect ourselves and our freedom comes from God, and the Constitution backs up that God-given right.
Seriously, Trace, you need to have some basic knowledge of our government, it's founding documents, and the ability to reason and use logic in order to successfully participate in discussions here at FReep. This may not be the pace for you. I feel bad now, like I just kicked a puppy.
"Of course, the point you miss is that the Declaration of Independence does not mention gun rights. Therefore you have failed to connect the dots between "God" and RKBA."
First of all, it's not "God", it's just simply God. Do you have the right to decide where you live? Do you have the right to date whomever you choose? Do you have the right to work whatever job you decide to? Do you have the right to watch TV at night? Do you have the right to go with the Cabernet instead of the Schirazz? Yes, you do. Are these rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independance? Yes, they are, under the "right to pursue happiness". Did God grant you the right to the pursuit of happiness? Yes, He did. Was the Constitution written to protect those rights given to you by God? Yes, it was.
The right to defend oneself comes under the "light to life" clause. In order to guarantee our right to life was not infrigned by a tyrant who would take away our lives, our liberty and not let us pursue happiness, the Second Amendment was included as the last line of defense against such infringements. Therefore, the Founding Fathers institutionalized the right to defend ourselves, as granted by God, in the Second Amendment. Betcha never thought about it that way, huh? Seriously, I can't make it any more elementary than that...it's been a long time since I tried to write on a third grade level.
"You can make another attempt if you dare."
Are you a masochist, or just a glutton for punishment? Don't get combative now.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Oh yeah? Prove it.
"As for the RKBA community allegedly being the most communicative...please quit reading the NRA's self-congratulatory propaganda. The RKBA community goes through ups and downs in their activism, alternating full-bore campaigns with navel-gazing. And most of it is in connection with the NRA's own efforts; anyone who thinks the NRA is not sufficiently pure enough for them to get involved is likely to not be involved with any effort at all."
Okay, Pooh-Bear. You're unwilling to listen to reason, since you obviously have some inate ability to see, hear, smell, feel, taste, and know everything. I'm not changing your mind, and you're not doing anything but make me shake my head and wonder what the hell's in the water out in Kalifornia. Maybe something that gives you ESP, eh? I don't think there's anything left to say to one another, so see ya in the funny papers.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I have nothing to prove before man or God, sonny boy.
The Second amendment exists to protect Citizens from a Government gone bad. So yes, an Uzi fits that bill. The Right to protect the people against the government is an extension of the Natural right of Self Defense...
The Nuclear Weapon argument is childish and should be avoided. As it tends to discredit the person advancing it.
There are folks right here on Free Republic who think that you have a Constitutional right to own and carry nuclear weapons.
The line is drawn somewhere; the question is, "exactly where?"
Bush won't take the heat for a decision?
Then why is he President?
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.