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."
He didn't veto CFR.
Why would he veto this?
Seems he is taking the Dems' agenda away from them.
Hmmmm...How..ah Democratic?
What happened to core beliefs?
"Yes, you did say this, and I'm still waiting for the proof which you have failed to provide. You're heavy on personal attacks, low on substance."
Have you ever heard of/read the Declaration of Independance? The "proof" you seek is in the freakin' Declaration. I did everything but give you a direct quote! I don't have a link to an online version, but go to your local librabry, and I'm sure they'd have a copy there. Geez...did you sleep all the way through your civics class in high school? Yes, in your case, I'm heavy on personal attack, because morons who can't/won't follow a very clear, very easy to understand argument like I've made with you, get to me every time! Sheesh...it's almost like you're being stupid on purpose...a troll maybe?
"An argument is out there, but you are either incapable or unwilling to persuasively articulate it."
And I've made it, time and time again, but you're obviously unable to understand adult English. Maybe they could write a book called "Curious George Reads the Constitution"...
"Again, I'm waiting for your evidence that God gives us the right to own assault weapons."
Well keep waiting, brain stem, 'cause I never said that! Go back and find where I said "God gives us the right to own assault weapons". You can't, because I never said it!!! Okay, I will try to make my point one more time, and hopefully the simplicity of it all will smack you in the face:
1) God granted us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not the right to "assault weapons", but the right to defend ourselves). The "proof" which you seek is in the Declaration of Independance.
2) the right to life, which is granted to us by God, includes the right to defend ourselves and our freedom from tyrants who would deprive us of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
3) these tyrants have guns.
4) because in the Declaration, it is recognized that to protect our God-given rights, governments are instituted among men, our Founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
5) the 2d Amendment guarantees us that we will always have the tools (guns) to exercise our God-given right to protect ourselves (as in the right to life...it is very important for me to spell out for you that, by saying this, I am not saying that God has given us the right to own "assault weapons").
6) at the time of the Revolution, and subsequent creation of the Constitution, the tyrants that would have deprived us of our God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had armies armed with Brown Bess muskets. Today, those tyrants are armed with M-16s, AKs, G-3s, and other military rifles.
7) (Warning! Logical thought needed to understand this point!) Just as the 2d Amendment (not God) guaranteed Americans in 1787 the right to keep and bear muskets, it guarantees us today the right to own semi-automatic rifles (it actually guarantees us the right to own more than semi-autos, but I don't want to overload you...I know all this logic and stuff has to be tough on you).
8) THEREFORE...as I've said many, many times before, and which as yet to penetrate your thick skull, the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, in order to protect our God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from those who would deprive us of those rights. Since those tyrants are armed with really mean guns, the 2d Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear the same really mean guns that the tyrants' armies have.
Why is it that you're the only person on this thread that can't make that connection? Are you really that abjectly stupid, or are you some loser who just enjoys acting abjectly stupid in order to keep an argument going? Or are you a glutton for punishment? Or are you a DU disruptor?
If you're not a troll, and you really don't understand anything I'm talking about, I can refer you to The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, Three Treatises of Government by John Locke, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and other great writings that are part of our founding philosophy. But they're a heckuva lot harder to read than what I've posted to you here today, so I sincerely doubt you'd understand the first paragraph of any of them. I'm not being mean when I say that. If you can not understand the very simple arguments I've made here today, you're better off reading People, Maxim, Cosmo, or TV guide.
"And it's been even longer since you wrote WELL on a third grade level."
Is that you, Pee-Wee Herman, 'cause it sure sounds like "I know you are, but what am I?" Oh my gosh, it didn't even occur to me that you might actually be in the third grade! Sorry...please don't tell the teacher on me! I'll give you my lunch money!
I have a headache, and you've been a big contributor to it. Thanks a lot!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Ooooooohhhhhhh..."sonny boy". You are sooooo clever, Pooh-Bear. Hurry up and take your meds, 'cause it's almost time for Matlock, gramps. Wipe your chin first, though, it looks like you dribbled your creamed spinach again.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
If the Rs are doing the same thing, what difference does it make?
As someone who works in Health Care, I will tell you that whether you knew it or not, you didn't have "much" privacy before. In fact some of the new laws are so strict that alot of doctors were complaining, because if taken literally it would not allow your primary doctor to call your specialist to discuss your case, or forward lab results or test results without you having to sign a release each and every time. You may think that is ok on its face, yet imagine a scenerio in which you are being treated by your specialist for cancer, and he added 5 more pills to your regimine, yet gets lab results back and sees that one of your chemistries is off. If he has to call your primary MD to tell him to change the dose of a different med you are taking, he would literally have to call you down to his office, have you sign a release, before he could call your primary MD.
Alot of the overly restrictive rules were changed before the final draft, but one originally stated that you spouse could not go to your local pharmacy and pick up your prescription for you because it would violate patient confidentially.
I truly think you are looking at the Med Pivacy laws incorrectly, and as I said they are much stricter than what you had before.
If this is all they are designed for, then why does the govt, all the way down to local law enforcement need them?
And watch who yer' callin' a wingnut.
Our Lord understood the need for His disciples' personal protection when they went on long journeys. Of course, firearms were not around at that time, but the sword was the weapon (yes, I said weapon) of choice for self-defense in those days. This line of scripture illustrates well:
Luke 22:36 (NIV)- He [Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Even Jesus was comfortable around the assault weapon of the day.
I think we're well aware of how whacked you are. And we can certainly see why you and your ilk always fail so miserably to persuade your fellow Americans.
Why have so many laws been passed restricting gun ownership? Exhibit "A," dinodino's statement above, is an prime example. The whackjobs hint darkly about loosing deadly violence on their critics and then wonder why the greater mass of Americans clamor for more gun restrictions.
This "gun in yo' face" attitude has as much to advance anti-gun legislation as anything any quiche-eating liberal has ever done.
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.