Posted on 09/05/2003 7:38:56 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
|
Second Amendment Supporters: Battle Stations Everyone! |
|
By Michael Gaddy © 2003
|
| Although it is still one year away, it is not too late to begin preparations for the war that will certainly be brought about by the decision of the Bush Administration as to whether to continue the Assault Weapons Ban or to just allow it to sunset. Bush will be faced with a tough political decision just weeks before the 2004 election. He must decide whether he will court the vote of the “soccer mom” crowd, who has as their heroes Feinstein and Schumer, or stay with the political base that helped him get elected in 2000. I speak here of the supporters of the Second Amendment. On April 13th, 2001, Bush indicated through one of his spokespeople that he supported the AWB. This brought cheers and adulation from the likes of Feinstein and Schumer, who were instrumental in the passage of this socialist piece of drivel 9 years ago. As a great majority of people in this nation find themselves handicapped by the constraints of a public school education, let me provide a short outline as to why this piece of legislation is in fact, illegal. Our Founding Fathers, realizing that government is oppressive at the very least and tyrannical and freedom eating in its maturity, sought to provide the citizens (that’s us) with the means to protect ourselves from this beast (government). The Fathers knew that to do this, the citizens must be armed. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson) Now, through corruption and political machinations, we the people, have surrendered our rights, as granted by our creator, to the very government our founders sought to protect us from. For free people to allow themselves to be disarmed by government is analogous to the police turning over their guns to the criminals and hoping for a good outcome. An entity whose very existence depends on stealing your money, your property and your freedom, does not wish for you to have the means to resist and will do everything possible to insure that you are weak and unprotected. September 11th, 2001, should have left an unassailable idea in the minds of the citizens of this country that the government is impotent when it come to protecting us -- though it takes billions of our dollars each year to pretend it does. Yet this same gaggle of incompetents wants us to surrender our last vestige of freedom, both from tyrannical government and/or an invasion of outside forces? This concept has at its core some very serious flaws. The strategy employed by government to manipulate the public into giving up their means of protection is based in deceit and emotion. Playing on the emotions of those from whom you have deprived the art of deductive reasoning (public schools) and spicing the pot with lies is part and parcel of this strategy. Emotion must rule the day and must cloud any ideas of common sense. If one examines the rhetoric of Feinstein, Schumer and others of their socialist/fascist ilk, they will find the appeal to emotions. “Assault weapons” being the choice of criminals on the streets of our country, appeals to the fear of the emotional cripple. Yet, statistics from the monster itself proves this theory to be so much BS. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of violent crimes, and the FBI admits that far more people are killed every year by knives and blunt objects than by any kind of rifle, including an assault rifle. The threat posed by assault weapons is so exaggerated that Joseph Constance, a deputy police chief in Trenton, NJ, once told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "My officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets." So, facts to the contrary, folks like Schumer, Bush and Feinstein push forward with their emotional appeal to disarm. If one could doubt for a moment this is an emotional issue rather than one based on common sense, consider the following: The major determination that places a firearms in the “assault” classification is its “looks”-- the reasoning against high capacity magazines is based on the assumption round 11 is much more deadly than 1-10-a bayonet lug on a rifle makes it more dangerous -- a folding stock, flash suppresser and banana magazine on a 10-22 makes you a felon, while any of the two in combination is perfectly legal! It must be the addition of that third one that creates the danger! Couple all of this with the fact the government agency most closely involved in the enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws and regulations, (BATF) not only has officers that frequently commit perjury to imprison legal gun owners, but actually has video taped lessons that were used to teach these agents exactly how best to lie in court when testifying against their most dangerous enemy, a law abiding citizen. George Bush will face a daunting task in September 2004: he must either please those of us who defend the Constitution and the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment or he must cater to the emotional lobby led by Feinstein, Schumer and all those soccer moms who could care less about the Constitution. Don’t forget the women's vote has already been targeted by this administration as it moves for reelection in 04. Many political advisors know that Al Gore probably lost the 2000 election because of his antigun stance and that most likely the 02’ election sweep by the republicans was facilitated by the pro gun vote. But Bush’s supporters will convince him that those who vote in favor of the Second Amendment have no place else to go in the election and will therefore vote for him by default or just stay away from the polls all together. They will therefore convince him that his best bet is to uphold the AWB and gain all those “touchy feely” votes by the emotional village idiots who pass themselves off as sensitive, caring Americans. But of course, if the issue is in doubt, nothing will sway the emotional like a schoolyard shooting with an “assault rifle!” Those of you who would scoff at this inference have obviously never heard of “Operation Northwoods” There are of course those who will read the above and say: just another conspiracy theory kook. This begs the question: if conspiracies do not exist, then over 40% of the people now in prison in this country should receive their immediate release as that is the percentage serving time for “conspiracy” to commit some crime. And then, of course, one who doubts the existence of conspiracies would have to believe Julius Caesar was killed in a random drive-by knifing. |
Perhaps because this particular one, he didn't say, or at least no one can find when he said or wrote it, and there are some pretty complete books of his writings and speaches out there. This one is sometime seen with a citation, but the citation is a mangled one, a version of one such collection, but with the editor wrong, and the title mangled.. and what's worse, the quotation is not to be found there.. I looked personally, took a 1/2 day of vaction to do it too.
However your basic point is well taken. Jefferson did have lots to say about keeping and bearing arms. All of it pro arms rights and pro shooting sports as well. He also penned that little ditty about the blood of tyrants and patriots.
That all depends on what you want to do in private. Smoking wacky weed is OK, but not Tabacky. Doing cocaine is OK, but they're less enthusiatic about booze. You want to shoot in private, or practice anything but a very mainstream religion, well they'll send in the BATFErs to shoot you, and/or the FBIies to burn you out. Oh, and they 'll put you in jail and set your bail at $100,000 for selling a wimpy .380 handgun to a cop over a decade ago. (Guy is, AFAIK, still in jail in Chicago)
I know there are problems in Washington and Oregon as well, but as long as we have the many ports, or bays that could be developed into Naval Bases, we don't really need California. Besides, if you carved out SF and LA, and maybe San Diego, you'd still have lots of good places for ports, although none as good as SF bay, and a pretty places as well.
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.