Posted on 09/12/2004 10:51:05 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
fox and friends is saying it protects police.
WHY IS FOX REPORTING THE HANDGUN CONTROL INC PROPAGANDA!!!
DID THE BAN EXPIRE LAST NIGHT OR TONIGHT?
Loud concurring bump-thump.
If the Bush Administration really wants to earn its keep with the conservative base, there is one thing they can do to earn it, and that is to drag SCOTUS, kicking and screaming, to take a Second Amendment case, argued on the basis of the Second only, and addressing directly the dicta in Miller (1939) about corporative vs. individual rights (which is utter buncombe! -- there is no such thing as a "collective right"!) which are the bone in the throat of RKBA.
People who don't want to respect other people's right to own and keep firearms need to throw in the towel and move to Europe, where they can admire their international socialist model up close and personal.
Something to keep in mind, however, is that judges, other officeholders, and rich guys hate the idea of private individuals owning firearms. If you make your living screwing people out of money or bossing them around, such a coarse incentive to civility and restraint on your part as broad and enthusiastic ownership of weapons is the kind of check to your egotism and your sense of getting your way, up with which you will not put.
The Pew Center (damn their little black liberal hearts) did a social typography of the U.S. electorate back in 1999 that showed why support for 2A rights is weak: two or three important demographics don't support firearms owners at all, who would otherwise be described as "conservative".
The dissenting demos on the "right" (broadly construed -- OK, let's call it "Bush country", I don't like "Red states", because the ones that voted for the Marxist Gorebot were really the Red ones) are:
1. Businessmen and establishment Republicans who like to call themselves "economic conservatives" (a.k.a. RiNO's). This is a big group of middle- and UMC people, to whose social apex the Bushes belong.
2. Older women -- widows, mostly -- who are socially "conservative" in some areas but are deathly afraid of three things: a) getting their support cut off, b) young black criminals, and c) firearms owners. These women tend to favor "strong" gun control -- i.e. severe restriction. This is a small group, perhaps 6% of the population, the smallest of the Pew demos.
Fortunately, there is another middle-class group, which we can call Reagan Democrats, who support (in a lukewarm way) RKBA, but I suspect women in this group ("soccer moms") are very squishy and susceptible to Million-Moron/Bell Campaign/VPC scare tactics. This is a large group.
The strongest "enemy" group is the large, wealthy cadre of hostile, well-educated, feminist and Left-activist single women, who have high disposable income and a burning desire to control every male and cut up every last firearm in America. These people drive the left wing of the Democratic Party, and their high priestess is Hillary.
The other important group is the large and wealthy cadre of Boomer/X'er professionals and young managers (often in IT) who have dovish, rainbowy views and generally align with the Left in a detached, semi-preoccupied sort of way. These are the Ben & Jerry's customers who like to listen to NPR. This is a large group. They are distinguishable from the mostly-female ideologues who are running NPR and spending all their free time helping out at the battered-women's shelter and planning the next round of Earth Day activities instead of hanging around Ben & Jerry's.
A final comment: women and white businessmen are the enemies of firearms ownership. The ideologues we can handle, but the RiNO's are going to be a severe problem, and quite possibly the group that does in the 2nd Amendment, if it ever goes down; and women, misled and ill-taught by the Hillary cadre, will be right there with them.
That's why the Second Amendment Sisters and the Liberty Belles in particular are so important to the message of citizenship in arms. We need them to educate women to the keystone role of 2A and to help perpetuate the Founders' vision of a free people. And, of course, to produce a new generation of healthy, bouncing baby citizens who love their formidable mommies and grow up straight and virtuous.
This is all very broad-brush, but that's the nature of a BB -- you want the corrective details, you need to write a book.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom"
Well, I can sell you one, made prior to 1986.
Oh yea, that was BEFORE the "AW" ban was enacted!
Cost is about $6,000 plus the $200 transfer tax.
Sadly true.
It's up to the people who have allowed themselves to be incarcerated in those regimes to make the necessary changes to regain their rights.
The only other way I can see is for the U.S. Constitution to to be fully implemented in all states, and I have no idea what sort of suit could make that happen.
None of the bill's I posted are new, they were introduced in 2003.
Congress has had two years to act on them, but failed to do so.
They will all have to be reintroduced in the next session in order to be considered again.
THIS TIME, I want them to actually get heard, and enacted!
Great bill's do not matter if the damn anti's get to bottle them up in committee for two years.
What I am really pleading for is that WE get ACTIVE!
Vote every gun grabber out of office in November!
Contact the Bush campaign and let them know that the "AW" ban expiring does not let him off the hook, we demand the restoration of the entire constitution, INCLUDING our unabridged second amendment right.
When congress reconvenes next year we must demand that they revive and pass several of the bills I posted.
The ban expiring is a small movement toward our finally having some momentum in our favor, we MUST capitalize on it.
If we do not we WILL see the Swinestein/Scheemer seditionist cabal attach a new ban to some "must pass" bill in the near future!
Last night!
But you surely do not expect the press to be accurate?
You and me both. While my Rep is a write off, I can look up the bills and see if they have a sister bill in the Senate. Hutchinson is a bit iffy, but Cornyn might be persuaded to pull for it.
We've been using small incremental steps for RKBA for years. Since the mid 80's, more than half of the states have adopted "shall issue" CCW permits, rather than "may issue" rules or bans... basically averaging one state per year.
I'm convinced, looking at the crime stats in those States, that law abiding citizens getting even this minimal amount of their Right to Bear/Carry arms back is why the those crime stats have been on a record setting downward trend.
One of the next logical steps in taking back more liberties is to begin lobbying on the state level for unrestricted concealed carry such as Vermont has had for years and Alaska just enacted in the past year. Which will be the next state to allow any law abiding citizen to carry concealed without having to get approval from their government?
Yea and I was one of them. This was my line in the sand. The Bush/Cheney sign went up in my yard on Saturday.
One down, 19999 to go...
To bring a smile to your face:
http://members.cox.net/themacallan/Goodbye/GoodbyeAWB_Start.htm
To bring more smiles to your face (though it'll hurt your wallet):
http://www.midwayusa.com/emailshowpage/9102004/100738995
Aaron, I enjoyed shooting yesterday and look forward to the next time. Next week I'll be shooting my "new" Swiss K-31 - I got the ammo from AIM today, with the rifle and reloading equipment due later in the week. Yeah, I know, it isn't an "assault weapon," but I'll probably also bring my AR. BTW, my reloads got me almost completely in a 3/4" group (the few not in the group resulted from a lack of proper sandbagging)! Between that and the AWB repeal, I was in a GOOOOOOOD mood last night.
"Perhaps next year another small step forward would be feasible. But not now."
I would agree. Let's get the 1934 suppressor ban repealed, and even make it mandatory to have threaded muzzles on all new guns. Call it the "Hearing Protection and Medical Cost-Savings Act of 2005." Think of the fortune saved by private insurance companies, individuals and the government by lowering the volume of gunfire. Think of how people near ranges and those that use them will be able to get along with each other (or ignore each other, as the case may be).
Also, get rid of the '86 Hughes amendment to the FOPA - call it the "Machine Gun Registration Act of 2005." After all, what self-respecting gun-grabber wouldn't want to have all machine guns registered?
Its for the children....
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.