[Dot_mdb]

This is a quote from the New York Times: (Kerry referring to GWB not pushing the AWB)

"Today George Bush chose to make the job of terrorists easier and to make the job of America's police officers harder, and that's just plain wrong," Mr. Kerry said, playing up his long-ago experience as a prosecutor to an audience of police officers and crime victims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14kerryxx.html?ei=5006&en=320587b74ddf7390&ex=1095825600&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

So Mr. Kerry wants to take away OUR weapons to make it harder for terrorists?

Kerry has also stated that he is a hunter and that he supports the Second Amendment for hunting/sporting weapons but not military type weapons. But if you read what the founders had to say then there is no doubt that the Second Amendment specifically referred to military weapons since they were afraid of tyrants and placed their trust in the ordinary citizen. The Kerry's of this world have no trust in the ordinary citizen.

Every politician that wants to take away our means of self-defense should be forced to answer the question, "Why don't you trust good and honorable citizens to own weapons?"

Bill

[Standing Wolf]

Why don't you trust good and honorable citizens to own weapons?

There's a catch: socialists believe only unarmed serfs are "good and honorable citizens."

[Cosmoline]

YES, he most certainly is. Kerry plans on using DHS and the new Patriot Act powers to come after *US*. Make no mistake, we are in his cross hairs. Consider how many on this forum have openly discussed the role of arms in checking the power of central government. In the eyes of Kerry and his pals, that's grounds to be shipped to gitmo.

[Waitone]

Yep!

[Zundfolge]

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/kerry_is_so_9-10.jpg

[CentralTexas]

and so did the British a couple of hundred years ago....
CT