Posted on 10/05/2003 9:39:47 PM PDT by Mini-14
California gun owners, George Bush is watching you.
Why?
Because on September 13, 2004, the unconstitutional federal ban against militia-suitable firearms and their standard capacity magazines is scheduled to sunset.
So what does that have to do with George Bush?
The president has said he favors extending the ban, giving cover to the Republican-dominated Congress to reenact it, or even make it permanent and strengthen it, via the Conyers/McCarthy-introduced Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003."
So why is George Bush watching California gun owners?
Because GOP gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger also supports banning assault weapons and enacting additionally restrictive gun control edicts. So if gun owners can be cowed into voting for Arnold, as opposed to proven Second Amendment champion Tom McClintock, Bush will have a pretty good indicator of just how far he can betray them without political consequences.
And if the polls are indicative of Tuesdays election results, the answer will pretty much be totally.
If gun owners vote for Schwarzenegger, they will once more validate former Republican Party National Chair Lee Atwaters cynical dismissal, Where else do [they] have to go?
Over the past few weeks, it has been demonstrated beyond dispute that Arnold is an enemy of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Gun owners who vote for Arnold out of fear will have proven themselves every bit the manipulated cowards Atwater deemed them.
Arnolds handlers tell us we must vote for him because McClintock is too conservative and cannot win. Yet a recent Gallup poll demonstrates when McClintock is pitted against just Bustamante, among probable voters the Republican state senator beats the Democratic candidate handily -- by 19 percentage points.
They offer a carrot, and tell us McClintock should bow out and run for future office, where hell have unified party support. What an empty promisethe same group of moderates opposing him now will have proven that their formula of compromise and betrayal works, write McClintock off again as too conservative, and push another Big Tent candidatemaybe even another one with Hollywood name recognition: The Republicans are making noises about running comedian Dennis Miller or actor Kelsey Grammer in future statewide racesboth newly self-outed neocons who have never uttered a public word about the Second Amendment, and neither with the demonstrated political qualifications to run for dog catcherbut sure crowd pleasers for a celebrity-worshipping public.
And they offer a stick, telling us McClintock acting as a spoiler will end his political career, and promising to exact revenge on him later. What a hollow threatas if any group so untethered from core values would have the guts in future contests to oppose any candidate they view as having the best chanceregardless of what he has or has not done.
As for splitting the Republican vote, it is Arnolds backers who have done sointentionallyin the culmination of what has been an ongoing struggle for moderate domination of Golden State GOP politics. The fact is, Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante will be no worse for gun owners than Arnold Schwarzenegger. They might even be better, as Republican legislators would at least offer a nominal resistance to a Democrat governor, whereas with Arnold in office, they would be inclined to support him out of party loyalty (and what a pathetic oxymoron that has turned out to be.)
The fact is, if you let the GOP betray you and still reward them, you will have proven Lee Atwater was right.
The fact is, if you dont vote for Tom McClintock, you will be telling all politicians who support usand they are few and far betweenthat their faithfulness didnt count, and that you will turn your back on them whenever someone bluffs you into thinking it is the pragmatic thing to do. If you do this, what incentive do you give the good politicians to ever stick their necks out for us?
On Tuesday, Oct. 7, Ill be voting for Tom McClintock, and Ill do so with a clear conscience. If it turns out that neither Arnold nor Tom wins, Ill not feel even a twinge of guilt for my decision. I wouldnt vote for Arnold even if Tom had dropped out, because the fact is, the Republicans havent turned their backs on himtheyve turned them on the people Tom represents. Those who say otherwise just dont get itour rights are unalienable and inherent, and anyone who attacks them deserves nothing less than to be repelled.
The GOP establishment has denigrated the Second Amendment in this campaign as a mere social issue out of many, instead of what it really isa keystone of a free republic. Its time they learned that for some of usI pray enoughtheir assault on our right to keep and bear arms under force of law is a declaration of war. So if they lose, tough. We gun owners are already living under evil, liberty-restricting edicts, and are in danger of having our lives destroyed if caught defying them.
Until the Republicans learn they cannot betray us, they can just feel our pain.
The fact is, George Bush and his handlers at the national level are watching this election very carefully. Because if gun owners dont have the courage and integrity to take a principled stand, and through their numbers deny victory to a known antagonist, the future course of the Republican party will be clear.
After all, those leading it have proven to be nothing if not pragmatists.
Yea, that's the sad part. You actually think you're on the 'right'.
Pathetic.....
L
Who's that?
See post #46...fortunately, my political views are not defined by your ill-informed opinion.
The governor just signed a bill that will ban virtually all handguns currently offered for sale in this country.
The state legislature, for the past two years, has passed a bill through both houses to ban .50 BMG rifles. Tom will veto this, Arnold will sign it.
The state legislature, for the past two years, has passed legislation to apply a tax ( 10 cents) on each round of ammunition sold in the state. Next year, Arnold will sign it, while Tom would veto.
Just had an interesting thought...
when the (soon to be former) State of California falls into mexican hands, it will be virtually unarmed?
will this mean it fell because it was unarmed or..
it fell and provided no usefull armed population or was not a source of arms for mexico?
It fell because according to most theories here AS will give the people what they want... unfortunately the soon to be majority of the people of the state will want it "mexified"
I
TLI
You can start by telling the truth. McClintock did not solicit those funds and had no control over how they were spent.
One can be on the far right of the political spectrum without being a paleo brigadier and/or a social conservative.
If one relies upon subjective definitions one can call themselves anything they want. Supporting Arnold, even out of expediency, by calling it "half a loaf" is so far from accurate that it is either totally ignorant, as you have demonstrated above, or deliberately misleading. Take your pick.
I know it is hard to comprehend. The only reason that I'm nominally a Republican is that the party has veered too far to the left for my tastes. I also have the good sense not to vote for fringe candidates and third parties.
Apparently you don't have the good sense to realize when you are being herded like a lamb to slaughter over a stupid chimera.
"Half a loaf" to me would be proposing to cut the size of government by 20%, and compromising on cutting it by 10% instead.
Ping me when the GOP gets this sort of deal done, will ya?
Arnold is not going to do anything about the 3 issues causing Kalifornia to fail. These 3 issues are: a massive invasion of illegals from the south, a redistributionist state government coupled with massive state spending, and an assault on the Rights of Free men and women by the state government.
The 4th big issue is a hostile business environment, and Arnold is promising a small tax cut which amounts to little more than a drop in the bucket. This isn't going to change the fact that CA will still be hostile to business, let alone revive the state.
The end result will the continuing influx of illegals and outflow of productive Americans. California will likely go bankrupt. And since there is will be a "Republican" running the state, guess who will take the blame? Also, since there is a "Republican" in the WH, guess who's tax dollars will be spent to bail out California? Conservatives get to take it in the shorts, not once, but twice.
But it won't matter to the GOP elites and party bosses in California. They will have already gotten their plunder and will be laughing their way to the bank. And if things really get rough for them, they can always change to the demoncrat party. After all, they believe the same things the demoncrats do.
Molon Labe!
Like Tom McClintock? Oh I forgot, he's not a "celebrity", just a better man for the job!
Who's that?
You mean the next Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee or Jim jeffords of California? Don't know, but they are out there. Compromise is the road that leads to hell. Waterdown what Reagan stood for and soon it'll be tasteless.
Tom would make an excellent state comptroller...not governor.
You couldn't think of a single "Republican" in California to the left of Arnold? Revealing.
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.