Turn Your RNC Donation Letter into a Demand to Allow the AW Ban to Expire (ctext)

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78587&highlight=politicians ^ | 06/27/2003 | NYPatriot

[thorshammer]

With the 04 elections right around the corner, I'm sure many of us are receiving donation letters from the Republican National Committee, asking us for our hard-earned money in order to stave off the Democrat onslaught.

This is all fine & good, except for one thing... with Pres. Bush's stance on the AW ban, and without any real assurances from Republican lawmakers that the ban will be allowed to wither away & die, I'm not really in the giving mood!

Thus, when I received a letter in today's mail from the RNC's Treasurer Mike Retzer, I decided to enclose a friendly little note, rather than the check that I usually stuff into the postage paid envelope that they send...

quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Retzer,

I am enclosing this note to inform you that I will not be donating anymore money to President Bush’s, or any other Republican’s election fund until America’s gun owners receive a public assurance that the so called "Assault Weapons" ban will be allowed to expire without renewal or replacement come September of 2004.

The Republican Party currently controls the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, in large part, due to the support and efforts of the gun owning public. Any reauthorization of the blatantly unconstitutional "Assault Weapons" ban by Republican lawmakers will be viewed as a betrayal of our God given rights, and as a selling out of the Republican Party’s ideals and core constituency.

As a life long Republican and former financial contributor to the RNC, I sincerely hope that President Bush reconsiders his support of a renewed "Assault Weapons" ban. I also ask that all Republican lawmakers be put on notice that how they handle this matter will greatly effect the future voting and donating habits of many Americans who have, heretofore, considered themselves loyal Republicans.

Yours truly,

[Richard-SIA]

You should remember a couple of things.

The ban took several attempts before it was finally passed by the slimmest of margins.

The ban would have failed in '94 without the "sunset" provision.

The "sunset" provision was a cynical ploy to allow legislators to have it both ways and duck responsibility for their vote. The claim was that it was only temporary and that if it did not result in a substantial decrease in crime it would be allowed to sunset.
Anyone who is familiar with the facts knows that "AW's" never were commonly used in crime, so a substantial reduction in crime being due to the ban is impossible.

Even Bubba Klintoon lamented how many D's he lost in comngress as a result of the AW ban's passage.
Gun owners are one of the strongest voting blocks in the country!

These "sunset" provisions are vile things when they are used to excuse trashing the constitution, we need to send a clear message that we will no longer tolerate this sort of cynical abuse from our elected officials.

[Richard-SIA]

"Assault Weapon" as used in the ban legislation is a pejorative based on a convienent political fiction, it has no basis in reality!

One of the Klintoon/HCI stooges noticed that most non-gunowners could not tell the difference between a semi and full-auto military appearing gun. The seditionist conspiring to destroy our RKBA and traditional America siezed on this to create their AW myth.

The proper term would now be "Homeland Defense" weapons.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Sure don't need a mini or streetsweeper."

However, it ain't called "the Bill of Needs."

[Richard-SIA]

I use my "AW's" to hunt.

MANY of the guns on the AW list make very fine hunting rifles, nearly all are excellent plinking guns.

Perhaps you also accept ATF's transparently irrational (and clearly an illicit lobbbying effort) determination that "Plinking" is NOT a Sport?

Killing off the ban is only a small step toward recovering our constituional rights.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"The Republican Party is the party of the gun owner."

True. They have been selling out our gun rights in exchange for their own power at a significantly slower rate than the democrats.

[Jesse]

Desires aren't needs, needs aren't rights.


Whatever guns I own is not dependent on what guns you own any more than the color of the car you have or, as you seem to think, what guns you think I should own.

[ErnBatavia]

We complain in Michigan when it hits 90.(ducking) :)

No ducking required...having spent a Fourth of July in the St. Cloud Minnesota area, when it hit the very high 90's, I can commiserate; sitting on the curb waiting for the parade was not a pleasant experience.....humidity sucks once you get to the upper 80's.

We have, given all, that "DRY HEAT" here. But get over 110 and it's head for the house time, and hope Gray Davis doesn't pull the electricity plug, because the A/C is going to be cranking.

[PhilDragoo]

RNC or NRA? Tough choice, but. . .

[L.N. Smithee]

What is "(ctext)"?

[GatekeeperBookman]

Thanks, I am busy through week & your list is handy-i'll send it around, after I look for more such info.

The Republicrats have several prob's like this-the criminal invasion of illegals, the brand new ( & largest entitlement in history ) Medicare drugs for my already wealthy parents, etc.

[GatekeeperBookman]

Your concern to avoid conflict got us where we are now.

Our rights are from God. They must not be willingly surrendered. Read the very short book by F. Bastiat, "The Law".

It's bad theology ( & illogical ) to allow totalitarian slugs to assume authority over Free people. One must not encourage any encroachemnt.

Fight!

[Jed Eckert]

[Cold Heat]

I knew that I would stir up the pot by posing my thoughts on the subject. Some of you have posted some solid reasoning, and others have resorted to the age old rights hyperbole.(I declined to make the requsite howitzer reply) It has been interesting all the same.

To summarize, I feel this battle, at this time to be a fools errand and would not think of asking Bush to allow the sunset for a variety of reasons. (most are stated, and most are shared with the majority of voters)

The most difficult obstacle is the fact that this is happening at a time when the FBI is rolling up terror cells in 40 states. The AK is their signature weapon of choice and you are advocating the legalization of the import and sale of said weapon.

I just do not think it is going to happen.

How about a compromise with another devious sunset provision so that this can be looked at again when the weather cools off a bit?

[Cold Heat]

Our rights are from God. They must not be willingly surrendered. Read the very short book by F. Bastiat, "The Law".

As far as I know, nobody has surrendered any rights.

The legal authority is under the commerce law the the courts have granted.

As far as I know, God has not weighed in on this matter.

[Eaker]

People still have their guns and don't really want assault weapons in their closet.

You do not speak for me or 99.999999% of true gunowners. Please do not presume to do so.

Eaker

[Cold Heat]

A good example of my point is the boondoggle that the NRA created when they lobbied against a regulation that made plastic or un-detectable hand guns illegal.

The membership in the NRA suffered greatly.

That is all I was trying to point out.

[GatekeeperBookman]

"As far as I know, nobody has surrendered any rights."

Our rights are restricted by ten's of thousands of so called 'gun control laws'. These are surrenders & should not stand.

There are fresh proposals daily, to end gun ownership-even through indirect means such as taxation.

"The legal authority is under the commerce law the courts have granted."

The commerce clause was intended to regulate interstate commerce ( to avoid conflict among the states & facilitate trade-not end it ). It was not meant to restrict the God given rights acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. The Supreme's recently over-turned one Texas law, explaining this very clearly. Gun free school zones was the point of the law-the commerce clause was unsuccessfully employed to justify the law.

"As far as I know, God has not weighed in on this matter."

The very acknowledgment of our rights in the Bill of Rights, is founded on centuries old knowledge, of how the world works-as described by some old texts commonly known as the Bible, The Torah, et al. The Constitution & other founding documents make clear reference to God's authority & then go on to employ logic & His authority for our rights & the actions of the founders.

If you require assistance in finding this explained, logically & very clearly, in a brief and quite SECULAR text, try reading Mr. Bastiat. The Law is actually referred to as a political work. God weighed in on this many centuries ago-by the very act of our creation. If you doubt His authority, then you are beyond any understanding-as Mr. Limbaugh has famously said, about Libertarians-"You're on your own". I perceive that you are. I wish you Good luck.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make my humble observations.

That Sir, is as far as I know, at this early morning moment

[Cold Heat]

LOL! well, we differ on those legalisms.

IMO, the law of the land is primarily secular. It is, based of Christian/Judeo principles of long standing however. But that does not mean that those principles are the law.

I have a slightly different read on that subject.

A good analogy is the english language. Based in latin in part, but latin plays a limited role.

[Eaker]

plastic or un-detectable hand guns illegal.

One of my friends is a chemist at DuPont. Their main work is based on high heat polymers. So far it has been proven that there is no plastic that can withstand the heat and pressure that the steel parts endure.

Non-issue.

The government leaves the 1st amendment alone and assaults the 2nd. That is wrong. Once they have destroyed the 2nd then the 1st is next. It will be downhill from there.

Eaker

[TexasCowboy]

"As far as I know, nobody has surrendered any rights."

WS, you've been around here for awhile.
You're not that naive.
We've given up so many rights that we are merely a shadow of the Republic as it once stood.

Your ideas are reflected very well in Feinstein's comments:
"Who needs an assault weapon?"
"Who needs a .50 caliber weapon?"
NO ONE has the right to tell another person what they fricking NEED!

Republicans are going to be surprised at the backlash.
There are still many hundreds of thousands of us who still believe in the Second Amendment.