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 Tuesday’s 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 Atwater’s 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.
Arnold’s 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 he’ll have unified party support. What an empty promise—the 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” candidate—maybe even another one with Hollywood name recognition: The Republicans are making noises about running comedian Dennis Miller or actor Kelsey Grammer in future statewide races—both 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 catcher—but 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 threat—as 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 chance—regardless of what he has or has not done.
As for splitting the Republican vote, it is Arnold’s backers who have done so—intentionally—in 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 don’t vote for Tom McClintock, you will be telling all politicians who support us—and they are few and far between—that their faithfulness didn’t 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, I’ll be voting for Tom McClintock, and I’ll do so with a clear conscience. If it turns out that neither Arnold nor Tom wins, I’ll not feel even a twinge of guilt for my decision. I wouldn’t vote for Arnold even if Tom had dropped out, because the fact is, the Republicans haven’t turned their backs on him—they’ve turned them on the people Tom represents. Those who say otherwise just don’t get it—our 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 is—a keystone of a free republic. It’s time they learned that for some of us—I pray enough—their 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 don’t 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.
No, most likely you're just sourcelessly inventing things out of thin air.
California's state law re: registering or banning assault weapons (Roberti-Roos, signed into law by a *Republican*, IIRC)
Arnold's campaign adviser Pete Wilson.
"Tom will veto" nothing. He's unelectable.
Well, we're clearly not going to convince each other at this point, and perhaps I should have used the conditional "would". Regardless, the tendency of the Tom and Arnold camps to talk past each other is one of the most frustrating aspects of this whole enterprise. Look, I think that an objective review of the FACTS show that Tom, with the support from the state and national Republican parties that is flowing to Arnold could win. But, that's water under the bridge at this point, and will be a topic of contention for at least the next several years in the party here in California.
And.. -- You have no real evidence Arnie would sign either bill..
No, just that he's on record favoring 'common sense gun control'. That hasn't worked out so well for us the past few decades or so, so I'm giving Arnold the benefit of the doubt, and taking him at his word.
Once elected, he may surprise us all as a one term reformer on individual liberties. If he doesn't, -- what have we lost? Nothing, I guess, except the remnants of a Republican party in this state that was distinguished in some degree of kind from the Democrat party.
Barbara Feinstein added to my impression on this matter when she cast snide remarks at Arnold for using all those evil assault weapons in his movies. She was trying to drum up support for her efforts to expand and make permanent the federal ban. Political candidates in states much more pro-gun than California are being asked about the assault weapons ban. For the media, it's a nation-wide litmus test.
How about, "home," Lee? Wherever the Hell you are?
What will they say when we simply stay home?
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.