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,

[DoctorMichael]

Between the "non"-protection of our borders, the allowing of fat Teddy to write Bush's Education bill, the massive drug giveaway increasing the size in government, AND the weak-kneed, nonexistent attempts by the Pubbies to break the Dumbo's faux filibuster of Bush's court nominees.............

.........I've written a couple of letters already to the requests for more cash. Thanks for bringing this up.

[Eaker]

That is why it is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.

Thanks TC.

Eaker

[Cold Heat]

So far it has been proven that there is no plastic that can withstand the heat and pressure that the steel parts endure.

That may be true regarding the specifications of steel. However, not all those specs are needed to accommodate a bullet launcher.

Yes, I recall that 70s argument and all the brouhaha.

The general public saw it as nonsense. Planes were being high-jacked at the time and they saw it as common sense.

They are applying the same common sense to the AK-47.

This is why I feel that the timing really sucks to sunset the ban now.

[Cold Heat]

I do not think the 50 cal arguement is getting much public support as of yet.

Most believe that if one were to use a 50 for criminal intent, it would be rare, and it has not happened yet as far as I know.(thus no outcry)

The AKs are a differnt story unfortunately.

[Cold Heat]

We've given up so many rights that we are merely a shadow of the Republic as it once stood.

On this we certainly agree. Most of them were lost to state legislatures without a vote.

Don't get be wrong. I support the second. I am merely stating facts as they are today and the political realities of the assault weapon issue as I see them.

I am confident that those realities stand dead in the way of sunsetting that bill at this time and place.

I am simply voicing what I see as the public mood at the present time. Also, the concerns of homeland security.

I totally understand the irrationality of so many of these fears.

[Eaker]

That may be true regarding the specifications of steel.

No, it is true. Not may be.

No offense intended, but do you know anything about guns or the 2nd amendment?

Eaker

[Cold Heat]

Uh yes!

Also trained in metallurgy.

[Eaker]

assault weapon

Simply that you use this term puts you on the other team.

Eaker

PS: From my cold dead hand.

[Shooter 2.5]

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 NRA lobbied FOR that legislation because they knew the technology didn't exist and they could win the PR war with supporting legislation like that.

Also the NRA gained a Million members due to the antics of the clintoon gang of gun grabberes. That's why he stated the NRA cost the dems so many seats in the House.

[Cold Heat]

Relax your gonads!

If you cannot discuss this issue with bowing up, then your cause is lost.

[Eaker]

Also trained in metallurgy.

You certainly made my point.

Eaker

[thorshammer]

See Text.

[Cold Heat]

The NRA lobbied FOR that legislation because they knew the technology didn't exist and they could win the PR war with supporting legislation like that.

Actually, the NRA lobbied it because the stated policy at the time was that if you gave them a inch, they would take a foot. They lobbied each and every measure in total.

Their policy has changed since that time because they were not getting it done.

[Eaker]

If you cannot discuss this issue with bowing up

LOL.........Report my "bowing up" post to the moderator!

LOL!!

Eaker

[GatekeeperBookman]

We differ in that you seem too hurried to think & may be unread. I am amazed at just how far you know & that you allege things which are clearly untrue. I am no scholar, but I have chosen to at least peruse a few texts. I am quite serious when I reccomend you read. Frederic Bastiat is very brief. The Bible is somewhat longer. The Constitutional history of the U. S. is a normal course of study, even in undergraduate colleges & is usually the reading & analysis of cases adjudicated before the Supreme Court.

The best source for Mr. Bastiat is free, at, http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
For example:
Life Is a Gift from God
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

I ( IMHO ) think that neither gun control nor the commerce clause can contradict logic & God. You may chose to use the word legalism to attempt to ignore these things-but I am again grateful to post these thoughts.

[Cold Heat]

There are compounds used in manufacturing today and for some time now that have many, (not all) of the qualities of steel or at least cast iron.

It can be milled, threaded and formed to any size and shape.

I used a bunch of it during my career. It withstands heat and impact to a reasonable degree and does not deteriorate for some time. Although, it was never used as a permanent repair. It does degrade over time.

[Cold Heat]

Sorry, not a big fan of natural law.

It has it's place, but not in lieu of secular law. That is my opinion.

[Cold Heat]

It's been fun, but I must hook up my trailer and head for Lowes.

I have a bedroom project that must get done before company arrives.

Later......................

[Shooter 2.5]

The NRA did not support any legislation that would ban a Glock but did support the law that banned any firearm that could pass a metal detector.

The NRA numbers grew by a Million during the first clintoon term so they didn't "suffer".

[GatekeeperBookman]

Again, you post an opinion in absence of logic & it would seem, with out any interest in the very basis of the foundation of all of our laws. You sir, are flippant. You sound like mere noise, a distraction.