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."
And, Pat Buchanan helped...
I wouldn't bet on that. RINOs will vote according to the polls, as they always do. Rove will advise Bush based on the polls. I hope the President has the cajones to do the right thing, regardless of what the polls and his advisors tell him.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
There are plenty of one issue voters, on various issues, You probably would consider me a one issue voter, I will explain why.
When I look a candidate in the eye, and ask him a question concerning the private ownership of firearms, if his answer doesn't pass muster, he just told me that he can't trust me with a gun, what does he have in mind for us that he doesn't want the citizenery armed? He just told me, that the Constitution is irrelevant to him. If he can't trust me with a gun, I can't trust him with my grandkids' freedom. If I can't trust him I refuse to vote for him.
If the candidate passes on the trust issue, I move on to other questions.
I think you might have something here. Especially since this issue will take center stage in September '04...a very critical stage in the campaign.
A great many.
Let Y equal the number of votes swinging toward GWB if he vetoes an assault weapons bill extension.
Practically zero. Most anti-gunners are liberals who hate Bush for a dozen other reasons as well, and aren't going to suddenly love him and vote for him for doing something they like this one time.
Solve the equation such that Y is greater than X.
Why should we "solve the equation" in a way that produces a falsehood?
That is one thing that the alleged "hard conservative" base never did figure out.
Because it isn't true.
The NRA bloc voted in 1994--mostly by accident.
What color is the sky on your planet? It was no "accident" that they voted Republican in large numbers in response to the Democrats' 1993 passage of the Brady Bill and the Democrats' 1994 passage of the "assault weapon ban".
The fact that you think this was somehow an "accidental" occurence in the voting booth, as if NRA members just sort of tripped and fell on the Republican lever for a change, reveals that you haven't a clue about the issues you're trying to pontificate upon.
And then they stayed home to varying degrees in 1996, 1998, and 2000.
Feel free to document this assertion. Be especially sure to document how you know that they "stayed home" as opposed coming out to vote, albeit in less polarized fashion than in 1994 (since Clinton had learned his lesson and steered clear of major anti-gun initiatives).
If the NRA bloc refuses to vote,
"If"...
and to generate a LOT of votes, then politicians will naturally ask "What have you done for me lately?"
You have it exactly backwards. Why should they vote for politicians who haven't "done anything for them lately"? If the politicians want votes, they have to earn them. Or at least not drive them away.
I'm a "troll" because I'm sick of seeing my rights nickled and dimed to death by two-faced politicians - Who claim to be "in your corner" during the campaign?
If someone is an enemy to my freedom, I at least expect them to have the guts to say so.
It was a great read, and contained a lot of details on historical and social points that are likely to be an important education for readers who hadn't already done a lot of personal research into the guns/rights issues.
However, I should point out that while a lot of Ross's historical points are very good, some of them should *not* be taken as gospel. He fumbled a few key points about the 1939 US Supreme Court decision _US v Miller_, for example, and in his passages about the JFK assassination he leans way too much towards some of the more tinfoil-hatted conspiracy "factoids", including the highly questionable and the outright discredited.
If the NRA bloc refuses to vote, and to generate a LOT of votes, then politicians will naturally ask "What have you done for me lately?"
In 2000, the answer to that question would be "put your semi-socialist ass in office by giving you Tennessee, West Virginia and Florida.
False. Many in the mushy middle are not as pro-gun as we here on Free Republic are. They do not see the Constitution as legalizing private ownership of "machine guns" (not what they are, but that's how the press presents it). A President suddenly "legalizing machine-guns" (again, how the press presents it) will lead the swing voters to decide that, whatever other admirable qualities Bush may have displayed from 9/11/01 onward, he's gone nutso in 2004.
The solution is to (a) ensure that any effort to extend the ban does not become legislation, and (b) ensure that the politicians can RELY (a key word, as I will discuss below) on a strong NRA turnout.
Feel free to document this assertion. Be especially sure to document how you know that they "stayed home" as opposed coming out to vote, albeit in less polarized fashion than in 1994 (since Clinton had learned his lesson and steered clear of major anti-gun initiatives).
Because I was working as a campaign volunteer and election-day driver in 1996.
The pro-lifers and 2nd-Amendment-uber-alles types simply refused to show up on Election Day--and they refused to do any heavy lifting prior to Election Day.
You know why one conservative campaign volunteer does the work of ten men?
BECAUSE THE OTHER NINE WORTHLESS GOBSHITES NEVER SHOW UP!
And Ross rips all of them equally.
Neither of us would call it a "classic", but find it enjoyable, very well written, educational and at times enlightening.
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.