[WAGCEVP]

Second Amendment Supporters: Battle Stations Everyone! - by Michael Gaddy - Sierra Times.com

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/09/05/gaddy.htm

[Zedicus]

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.
If he votes for it, he will be comitting political suicide.
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.
Hit the nail on the head!
"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)
He would turn in his grave if he could see what the liberals who "claim" to be americans are up to...
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.
Very good point.
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."
The problem is that "to-many" fall for the tricks that swine & shoe use.
common sence & logical thinking are becoming very rare if not extinct things...
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!
How they think that "Appearances" can be leathal in a firearm is beyond me...
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.

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.
If he passes it his chances of Reelection will be practicaly "0"
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.
:barf:
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”
I dare any Anti to Read up on Project Northwoods & still say they trust the gooberment...
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.
Good conclusion!:)

[hansolo]

IMVHO, the above is an excellently written, well thought-out and logical post. One can only hope that the small percentage of voters in this country will include a majority who agree with this echoing of the wishes of the Founding Fathers.

[P95Carry]

Amen.

[rick_reno]

The decision by Bush about whether to push the bill will be a simple one -
will he get more votes by pushing and signing a new one than he will lose by pushing and signing a new one. Let's assume he's running against Hillary - a real possiblity. How many gun owners would vote against Bush or not vote knowing it would help Hillary win the White House. I'm betting very few. I think he's got a win/win situation at hand and by election time his popularity will be so damaged that he will be after every and any vote he can find. This will be especially true if he's running against someone who polarizes voters - like the vibrant Mrs. Clinton.
The other arguement in favor of another AWB is that we've already had one for 10 years, and I didn't see massive protests by gun owners over it. A few Democrats got voted out of Congress, probably because of it - but the majority (and it took a majority to pass it) got relected to new terms.
Face it - this issue isn't that important to MOST voters.

[cookhj]

i believe that i know the author of this article. he is a very intelligent man and a retired army SGTMAJ.

[Mark Tyson]

If he signs a new ban . . . I don't care if he's running against Mao Tse Tung, I won't vote for him.

[Henry Bowman]

I'm afraid I must agree with Mark Tyson.

Anybody got any links to info on Northwoods?

[Zedicus]

A thred was started on THR yesterday on it, here's the URL
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38924

& Here is one that was on the article page
http://members.austarmetro.com.au/%7Ehubbca/northwoods.htm

[Delmar]

From what I've seen out of "Dubya 2" so far, if that bill lands on his desk, he WILL sign it. The battle needs to take place in Congress, not the White House if we have any chance of this idjut law going away. He has already vocalized his support for mag capacity restrictions here in Texas when he was governor, and I've not heard anything lately that would make me think he has changed his mind.
After he signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill, I think he would sign anything the Congress passed. :banghead:

[tyme]

Pro-RKBA may be the right side, but there's plenty of emotion on both sides.

[Waitone]

From what I've seen out of "Dubya 2" so far, if that bill lands on his desk, he WILL sign it. The battle needs to take place in Congress, not the White House if we have any chance of this idjut law going away. Absolutely correct but does not go far enough. I will guarantee you the calculus Dubya and Rove are making is, "So what if we screw 'em just a little. You think they're going to vote for Hillary?" The war needs to fought in Congress but the conflict needs to be brought right to Dubya's front door.

In my view the most effective way to scuff him up is simply to deny him control of the senate. His second most important goal is control of the senate which means control over judicial nominations. In my mind Dubya does not deserve complete control and the best way to inflict damage is to give the democrats control of the senate. I see no problem in letting him continue the war on islamofascist terrorists, but I do not think he deserves complete control of the domestic agenda. I don't see a real problem here since I can't see a substantive difference between Dubya's agenda and that of the democrats. Both are statists.