Chemtrail Central
Register
Login
Member's Area
Member List
Who's Linking
What's Popular
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Gallery
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Polls
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Top Websites
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Gun Control and the Bush administration (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:  1 2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author
Topic:   Gun Control and the Bush administration

Topic page views:

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 01-31-2003 02:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Justice Department Ignores Second Amendment Violations

UPDATE ON "ASHCROFT" PETITION

by Brian Puckett
www.keepandbeararms.org

A few months ago Citizens Of America (citizensofamerica.org) and KeepAndBearArms.com joined forces to create, deliver, and follow up on the Petition to Enforce the Second Amendment.

The petition is carefully constructed yet simple to read and understand. After laying out its case in simple segments, it then demands that U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft act on his now-famous statement that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and that he use his office to protect this right in states that are blatantly violating it, with California being the first choice of targets.

Over 20,000 handwritten petition signatures to the petition have been delivered to Ashcroft at the Department of Justice, with more to come. We requested that Mr. Ashcroft respond to the petition when we delivered the first two boxes of signatures, but he did not. Our third letter finally received a response, if it can be called that, from James S. Reynolds, Chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section. Why him? We have no idea. The text of his letter is reproduced at the end of this article.

When a 16-year old male is slammed onto a car hood and punched once by a police officer, the U.S. Department of Justice instantly swings into action. Yet the Department of Justice, led by Mr. Ashcroft, does absolutely nothing when states such as California pass an unconstitutional "law" criminalizing the right to own and use the very firearms implicitly referred to by the Second Amendment. He does absolutely nothing about the men, women, and children of states such as California who are being raped, robbed, and murdered every week because they cannot "legally" protect themselves with the best tools for the job. He does absolutely nothing when 20,000 Americans sign a petition pointing out this illegality and hypocrisy. He does absolutely nothing when Gray Davis, the governor of California, states in a recent lawsuit that…

• "That is, Plaintiff [Mr. Bird, or any American citizen living in California] has no legally recognized right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."

• "...the Constitution does not provide a private right to bear arms."

• "...the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen."

Our third letter to Mr. Ashcroft stated:

"While you say the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, you also say the high court need not test that principle now. Why on earth not? People's lives are being destroyed right now, for simply exercising their supposedly protected rights. Why would someone with the authority to intervene allow them to remain at risk for another minute? We have a narrow time frame to capitalize on, and in the wake of recent events, when has there been a better time to do so? When will a better time arise? There are no guarantees that Mr. Bush will win reelection - and if he doesn't, you could well be replaced by another Janet Reno, who will simply direct a brief to rescind the ones you just issued."

George Bush is supposed to be "pro-gun rights". Attorney General Ashcroft is supposed to be "pro-gun rights". They are saying things they believe gun owners want to hear, the things they believe will win our votes. But they are not doing anything to follow up on these mere words.

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 02-14-2003 11:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IT'S OKAY TO ARM DICTATORS BUT BU$H WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/kabanews/disp.asp?d=2/14/2003

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-14-2003 10:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BU$H WANTS YOUR GUNS.

Saddam hands out machine guns to it's civilians...yet Bu$h wants to DISARM you.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/6/62326.shtml


Bush Choosing 'Gun Control Over Terrorist Control'
Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Monday, May 6, 2002 Capitol Hill -- The Libertarian Party says President George W. Bush, not the anti-gun liberals in his administration, is directly responsible for why America's commercial airline pilots remain defenseless against terrorists.

"The president puts whoever he wants in cabinet agencies and they answer to him," said Libertarian Party spokesman George Getz.

"So if the president wants pilots not to carry guns, it doesn't matter if he's got [Transportation Secretary] Norman Mineta or [National Rifle Association Executive Vice President] Wayne LaPierre or [Gun Owners of America Executive Director] Larry Pratt in that job, the guns are going to get banned," he continued.

Second Amendment rights supporters and pilots groups have criticized Mineta for his public opposition to arming commercial airline pilots.

"I don't feel that we should have lethal weapons in the cockpit," Mineta said at a March 4 press conference with Undersecretary for Transportation Security John Magaw, the former director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

While Libertarians acknowledge Mineta's anti-gun history in Congress, they say the transportation secretary cannot be solely faulted for the administration's inaction.

"It's telling only half the story to blame this on the cabinet secretary," Getz contended. "This is President Bush's opinion. If he doesn't like what Mineta is doing, he can fire him."

Libertarians say the fact that Mineta was not fired, or any kind of correction issued regarding the statement, proves that Bush supports it.

"He's chosen gun control over terrorist control," Getz added.

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey have also publicly stated their disapproval of arming pilots.

A comment Wednesday by White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe supports the Libertarians' contention that Bush opposes the move, as well.

"We don't need to have a potential for handguns getting loose on airplanes," he said, claiming arming pilots "could create more danger than it eliminates."

Bush Being Doubly Hypocritical

Getz believes Bush, who signed the legislation allowing thousands of law-abiding Texans to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense, is being doubly hypocritical.

"He's cruising around on Air Force One. He's surrounded by armed Secret Service agents," he argued. "But he tells everyone else they shouldn't have the same right to fly in safety."

The decision over whether airlines may allow their pilots to be armed could be taken out of the hands of everyone in the administration except President Bush, if some congressmen have their way.

CNSNews.com reported Wednesday that Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, and John Mica, R-Fla., have introduced legislation to force the creation of a voluntary armed pilots program.

The bill would require the Transportation Security Administration to establish a program to deputize qualified, volunteer pilots as "Federal Flight Deck Officers" within 90 days after its enactment. Within 120 days of enactment, 500 such pilots must be deputized under the act, and all volunteer pilots who meet the requirements must be deputized within two years.

The proposal would also provide training and background checks for the pilots similar to those undergone by Federal Air Marshals.

'Too Much Of A Government Program'

That bill has the support of the major airline pilots' unions, but not of the first member of Congress to suggest arming pilots after the September 11th attacks.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says Congress simply needs to acknowledge the constitutional right of airlines to allow their pilots to carry firearms on the airlines' private property, nothing more.

"Just like any other industry that has [armed] guards and security all the time, I don't think the airlines should be any different. The Young-Mica bill," he says, "is too much of a government program."

None of the major airlines has come out in support of any "armed pilots" proposal, but industry insiders say the Young-Mica legislation is more palatable to the airlines because it shifts the liability for mistakes from them to the federal government.

But Paul sees that as another of the problems with the Young-Mica bill.

"I wanted [liability] to fall on the business that has a responsibility to protect its property. I wanted to just legalize their right to do so," he explained.

The airlines, Paul says, should have the same liability that any other business would have if an armed employee of the business improperly used his or her weapon.

"Hopefully we live in a civilized society that, if we're being attacked by terrorists and we shoot them, that we would have enough sense not to put the people doing the shooting in jail," he added.

Shortest Bill Ever

On September 17, 2001 the Texas conservative introduced H.R. 2896, "to provide for the safety of United States aviation and the suppression of terrorism." The proposal has the distinction of being one of the shortest bills ever introduced.

After four sentences of "findings" about the terrorist attacks, it states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department or agency of the Federal Government shall prohibit any pilot, copilot, or navigator of an aircraft, or any law enforcement personnel specifically detailed for the protection of that aircraft, from carrying a firearm."

The bill has 19 co-sponsors and was immediately referred to the House Subcommittee on Aviation, which Mica chairs. No further action has been taken since.

Paul acknowledges that Bush, himself, has not come out against arming pilots, but says the evidence is obvious.

"You have to infer from the neglect and lack of enthusiasm," the congressman observed, "that he is not on our side on this issue."

Libertarians are less forgiving, placing responsibility squarely on Bush, and issuing a warning.

"If another hijacking occurs, we're going to lay this at George W. Bush's feet," Getz concluded. "He has to accept responsibility for what he has done."

But Paul says pilots are still flying unarmed because of a cultural and educational failure.

"We've been badgered and brainwashed by our schools and our media to be opposed to gun ownership. So it's Congress, it's the regulators, it's our presidents, it's our society and our lack of respect for the Second Amendment and the Constitution as a whole," Paul concluded. "There's a lot of responsibility to go around."

Copyright CNSNews.com

IP Logged

FLKook
Chemspiracy Realist


East Central Florida
1388 posts, Apr 2001

posted 04-18-2003 11:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for FLKook     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32094

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Upset gun owners
set to dump Bush
Shooters angered with White House support for firearm ban

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Unhappy with President Bush's decision to support continuation of a controversial gun ban passed during the Clinton administration, many gun owners say they'll dump Bush in 2004 and vote for someone else if he signs new legislation extending the prohibition.

Angel Shamaya, founder and executive director of the KeepAndBearArms.com website, said in a single day some 4,300 people responded to a poll on the site asking if respondents would continue to support Bush if he renewed a ban on so-called "assault weapons," initially passed in 1994.

According to polling results by midday yesterday, that figure had climbed to near 4,900 people, with most – more than 93 percent – responding "no" to this question: "If Congress votes to re-authorize the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal so-called 'Assault Weapons' ban, gives the bill to President Bush and he signs it into law, would you still vote for him in his bid for re-election to the presidency in 2004?"

Less than 7 percent said they'd still support Bush if he aids in reauthorizing the legislation.

The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, among other things, banned the manufacture and importation of certain military-style semi-automatic rifles, dubbed "assault weapons" by bill supporters, while limiting magazine capacity to just 10 rounds. It is considered a crowning achievement for anti-gun groups, but to get more support, the bill's sponsors inserted a 10-year sunset provision, which takes effect in September 2004 – weeks before the general election.

Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association were hoping the GOP-controlled Congress would allow the law to expire. The current Congress and administration are considered the most gun-rights friendly in more than a decade, but Bush's comments last week threw that presumption into doubt. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight-Ridder newspapers that the president "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

"There is no such thing as gun control, only incremental gun prohibition," said Brian Puckett, co-founder of national gun-rights organization Citizens of America, of the ban itself. "Gun owners must grasp another political reality, which is: Allowing the government to get away with dictating the features of some guns sets the judicial, legislative and psychological precedent for allowing them to dictate the features of all guns."

"Our gun-rights organization, along with many others, took a stand for Bush in and after the 2000 election," Shamaya told WorldNetDaily. "From urging even Libertarians and third-party voters to support him to helping account for 'lost' military votes in case it came down to that, we fought to turn the Texas governor into a president. If supporting a semi-automatic rifle ban – the Feinstein/Clinton gun ban, no less – is how he intends to repay us, he's lost his marbles."

While the results of the KABA poll are non-scientific, they do provide a glimpse into the angst of gun owners. As WorldNetDaily reported, some lawmakers and gun-rights advocates are also upset with Bush's stance.

"I was surprised and disappointed to learn of the report of the president's support for continuing the ban on homeland-security rifles, aka semi-auto rifles," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, a group with 300,000 members nationwide.

"I am also puzzled. Why would George Bush want to help Democrats? The issue, when it was opposed by most Republicans, cost Democrats the House in 1994 and the White House in 2000," Pratt said. "Banning the homeland-security rifle is pure Washington, but anti-Constitution and anti-homeland security."

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, also decried the current ban and does not support the president's position to renew it.

Gun-rights supporters voiced their opinions to WorldNetDaily regarding Bush's decision.

"I will not vote for [Bush] if this ban is in place by Election Day," one WND reader said. "I am a Republican who will vote for a Democrat if I have to, if they fight against this bill. All of my conservative, gun-owning friends are exactly the same as me."

"Recently we saw on TV our soldiers handing out AK-47s to Iraqi volunteer cops," said another reader. "Our government handing out AK-47s to people they do not know, folks that have not passed an FBI background check … Yet our government would fall over backwards before even suggesting that Americans arm themselves. Quite hypocritical, I think."

"I've said long ago that 'we'd see' about Bush on guns when this opportunity finally came about," said another. "What a non-surprise. One could wrap a dill pickle in a Godiva Chocolate box and bow, but the contents remain the same. …"

Not all gun owners have criticized Bush's decision.

"He stated during the campaign he supported the law. I am pro-guns and pro-NRA, but I agree that Bush should support this assault-weapons ban," said one reader. "When in Washington you have to pick your fights carefully and this is not one worth expending political capital on."

Gun-rights activists were also upset by the president's stance because it comes at a time when a new series of lawsuits against gun makers is being launched by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others.

One retailer/activist, Concealed Carry Inc., of Oak Brook, Ill., has even begun a campaign to "cooperate with the NAACP" and is refusing to sell firearms to blacks.

"I am going to use the broad authority granted me as a federally licensed gun dealer to prevent straw purchases by denying sales to African-Americans. To insure fairness, there will be no exceptions," said John Birch, president of Concealed Carry Inc. He said he'll continue to ban sales to African-Americans "until the NAACP asks us to, at which point we will be pleased to resume sales."

"We must let Bush and the Republican party know that if they don't support our rights we will either refuse to go to the polls or we will vote for a third party," Puckett said. "If you give them your vote even when they sell you out, they'll keep selling you out."

"President Bush created the so-called Homeland Security Department, yet he wants to continue a ban on homeland-security rifles and has done nothing to protect the sieve laughably called a border," Shamaya added. "Bush's support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles is a vote to leave patriots in this great nation with inferior defensive capabilities."

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-18-2003 12:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We'll see...We'll see...I would be extremely disappointed if Bush allowed this ban to stand, and not allow the sunset clause to expire. He would be siding with Democrats and against second amendment rights….and for nothing. The Democrats will still be his greatest enemies, and they still won’t respect him.

I would still vote for him because there would not be a better option, and to risk a Democrat like Hitlery getting into office over one issue like this would be tantamount to loosing the United States as we know it. If Gore had been elected, the United States would be in serious jeopardy today. Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Gasoline would be 4.00 a gallon. Kim Jong Il would be having coffee at the Whitehouse, with Castro providing the cigars (as I said before)...and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would be attacking freely with nothing to fear, while Gore whined and asked them nicely to stop.

We would also be well into a depression at this stage, because Gore would not be helping American Airlines out of Bankruptcy, he would be encouraging environmental lobbies to sue them into bankruptcy....Tax increases and astronomical increases in government spending would be the answer to every economic problem. The military would be slashed.

America would be on it's last breath...and vulnerable to attack like never before in history. That's why I can't risk voting for anyone but GW Bush in the next election. We can't risk the current crop of leftist, anti-America Democrats gaining power, or we truly would have an all out gun ban. These were the people who sponsored this type of legislation in the first place. By not voting for GW, you only risk putting them in power...so that's not the solution to the problem here.

I just hope GW doesn't put us in this position. It's not worth the risk of loosing his base support that may not be as strategically oriented as I am, who may not see the big picture. There are single-issue people out there who would certainly not vote for Bush over something like this, without seeing the big picture, that in not voting, they are actually electing the very people who wrote such legislation in the first place. By not voting for GW and allowing a Democrat in office, they will loose the very right they say they are taking a principled stand for...But people like this don't see the bigger picture.

That's why I REALLY hope GW, doesn't put us in this position. He needs to let the sunset clause take effect.....because stuff like this scares me, not so much that I think I'm going to loose any rights under a Bush administration, but because I might loose one of the greatest presidents ever, over a no-brainer like this one. GW needs to let this ban expire and stop being this damned "new tone" Republican. I'm sick of the new tone...Bush does nothing but compromise to people who will never compromise in return, and who only return with unprecedented attack. I wish this compromise would stop. The new tone should be dead by now....

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-19-2003 05:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BOTH HOUSES are dominated by REPUBLICANS FW...You won't worm your way out of this one.

When are you going to realize it doesn't matter what letter (R) or (D)is at the end of a name?
The Bu$h administration is like Clinton on crack. BOTH want to tke our rights away. BOTH work for the globalits and the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda.

A population disarmed is a population of slaves.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 04-19-2003]

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-20-2003 04:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
BOTH HOUSES are dominated by REPUBLICANS FW...

Correction...Both houses have a narrow Republican majority...especially the Senate. But both houses are not dominated by conservatives. There are several Repulicans in name only....turncoats.


quote:
You won't worm your way out of this one.

What one? Worming is what you do...I have no idea what you are talking about...


quote:
When are you going to realize it doesn't matter what letter (R) or (D)is at the end of a name?

When I become as idiotic as you, hell freezes over and ostriches fly to the moon...That's not going to happen any time soon. Anyone who doesn't see the vast differences between Republicans and Democrats just has his head up his orafice.

quote:
The Bu$h administration is like Clinton on crack.

Clinton WAS on crack...and he used to do lines in the oval office, but you've made this statement before and it was just as stupid then.. as it is now.

quote:
BOTH want to tke our rights away. BOTH work for the globalits and the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda.

Clinton works for Clinton. Bush works for America. The globalist thing is a figment of your feeble mind. Nothing more than a case of severe self- delusion.

quote:
A population disarmed is a population of slaves.

True...that's what you'd like to see Iraq remain...a population of slaves. Now everyone and his sister is armed with Kalashnikovs and all the ammo they can carry. You should be very happy.



[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-20-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-20-2003 01:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah..Saddam HANDED THEM OUT to his people.

Have you seen the news? U.S. troops are busy COLLECTING THEM and DESTROYING THEM. WHY? So there will no overthrow of a carefully selected dictator by the U.S. and Britian.

Only the U.S. and Britian get to determine Iraq's future...right FW?

The globalists AREN'T REAL? Well....mabye that's why they have their meetings in SECRET.. See BILDERBERG...See G-8...See WTO..
See P20G....ad nauseuam.

Just keep waving that Chinese slave made plastic American flag FW.

IP Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:  1 2 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:








Contact Us | Chemtrail Central


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c