PDA

View Full Version : Not Tamper With 2nd Amendment? 'Sen. Kerry Already Has,' Says CCRKBA



Ewergrin
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 09:56 PM
Not Tamper With 2nd Amendment? 'Sen. Kerry Already Has,' Says CCRKBA

10/14/2004 5:23:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: National Desk

Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 425-454-4911

BELLEVUE, Wash., Oct. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- When Sen. John Kerry insisted during Wednesday's third and final presidential debate that "I will not tamper with the Second Amendment," he was being disingenuous, because he already has, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

Once again portraying himself as a pro-gun-rights candidate, Kerry insisted, "I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment."

"Sorry, Senator, but that claim does not pass the smell test," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "One look at Mr. Kerry's record on gun control proves that actions speak louder than words. Over the years, there is not a single gun control proposal which Sen. Kerry did not support. He backed the Brady Law, part of which was found unconstitutional. He supported the Clinton semi-auto ban, an issue that cost his party control of Congress. He supported a proposal earlier this year that would have banned virtually every centerfire hunting rifle cartridge in the country. He backs legislation that would effectively ban all semi-auto shotguns, including the one he held in front of an audience in West Virginia on Labor Day.

"Senator, when you vote to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms," Gottlieb observed, "you are tampering with the Second Amendment. When you support bans on certain firearms because of cosmetics you don't like, you are tampering with the Second Amendment. When you proclaim that you are a hunter, believing that gives you legitimacy in the shooting community, you are demonstrating that you don't have a clue what the Second Amendment is all about.

"And when you say you respect the Second Amendment," Gottlieb added, "you conveniently don't explain whether you respect some silly notion that it allows states to establish national guard units, or that you unflinchingly believe that it guarantees -- not grants -- the right of an individual citizen to own any kind of firearm he or she wants.

"And when you said, Sen. Kerry, that you 'would not roll back any constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment or a woman's right to choose,' you skipped over the Second Amendment," Gottlieb concluded, "because you've been trying to roll the Second Amendment right off a cliff since you were elected 20 years ago."

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

[Source (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38184)]

Tryggvi
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 10:16 PM
Ja, his stances on guns, and, needless to say, immigration and the racial quagmire, are those I don't agree with. But no presidential candidate can oppose immigration anymore without losing the election -- there are already too many non-white voters with kids and cousins in the Third World in America. It has become a self-destructive process, which, in the U.S., can no longer be reversed at the ballot box. That's why the right to bear arms has become more important than ever -- and the increasing crime is really just a secondary motive.

In my view, Kerry could have actually won the election with certainty, if he had taken a reasonable position in the drug question which criminalizes dozens of millions of Americans. Not by being pro-legalization (which probably might have alienated more voters than are attracted), but by being anti-drug war and demanding a review of the current policies, which waste billions of tax payer's money, by expert committees.

This editorial sums it up pretty well:
We don't need no stinkin' dope votes

By Jules Siegel

November, 2004

Doper support will be the kiss of death for Kerry, subscribers sneered on massively liberal dailykos.com when I posted the news that voters were being registered at the Washington State Hempfest. Do these people think that drug users don't vote? That they have no influence? That they still dress in bell bottoms and wear flowers in their hair?

The right wing is way ahead on this. Libertarians are almost uniformly in favor of immediate legalization. Even hard core conservatives are anti-drugwar. On far right FreeRepublic.com, a drugwar abuse item typically pulls about 75% outright antidrugwar comments. The culturally tolerant fiscal conservative could be Kerry's key swing voter.

William F. Buckley, the orthodox conservative's Pope, complained that marijuana laws are based on "moral fanaticism."

"What is required," he said, "is a genuine Republican groundswell. It is happening, but ever so gradually."

Buckley pointed to a 2003 Zogby survey showing that 40% of Americans believes "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it and make it illegal only for children." In the National Review, Drug Policy Alliance's Ethan A. Nadelmann writes that 72% now favors fines rather than jail for simple marijuana possession. At least 50 million have tried grass.

Orthodox leftists, however, seem to be incapable of understanding the size and -- very important -- intensity of the anti-drugwar movement. They tend to support the enforced treatment model without fully understanding how nasty it is. Even when they are drug users themselves, many still privately think of smoking marijuana as a vice that they regret. Anti-drugwar activists see it as self-medication, not just for physical pain, but for the otherwise usually intractable irritations of life in groups.

Many anti-drugwar activists in forums such as DrugWar.com plan either to vote for Nader or abstain because Kerry is just another cop, even though he's softened his positions on drug enforcement since the campaign began. These are outspoken opinion leaders with very effective media information programs. Any convincing statement of sympathy would instantly move them.

Kerry could come out for a complete review of all drug policy issues by a blue ribbon panel of renowned experts. He needn't demand legalization, decriminalization or any other specific action. If asked, he would answer that he wants to know the facts before offering any positions.

No independent panel has ever found marijuana worth criminalizing. Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and the amphetamines will always be controlled substances, I'm sure. But mandatory sentences are already under heavy attack from the local governments that can't afford to pay for them. Only D.E.A. shills deny that the drug war is an utter disaster.

Political campaigners don't care if illegal drug use is a vice or not, just how many net votes the issue will produce, and whether or not the number is worth the fire-alarms that taking a position will set off. Given the size of the prison and treatment industry, deafening sirens will suffocate any legislative drug reform enthusiasm.

Congressional Democrats are mostly either joined at the liver with the Republicans on drug policy, or too cowardly to speak out. Although it would be a devastating October surprise, Health and Human Services does not seem eager to use its power to reschedule marijuana as a therapeutically useful drug. The judiciary, however, is ripping mad about being throttled by Ashcroft's theological police.

Thus there's only one practical consideration left for the anti-drugwar side. Who will appoint the judiciary, including as many as three Supreme Court justices?

The Supreme Court can legalize marijuana by fiat. Think of it -- no negotiations and tortured lobbying, but genuine experts expounding on the facts, constrained by rules of evidence.

Pick one: Bush or Kerry. Which candidate is most likely to name judges who will interpret the Constitution of the United States according to facts in evidence rather than DEA propaganda?

JULES SIEGEL covered the youth culture for Playboy, the Village Voice and Rolling Stone. His essay "The Last Word on Drugs" is featured in Preston Peet's "Under the Influence -- the Disinformation Guide to Drugs" (The Disinformation Company, October, 2004).

[Source (http://www.coastalpost.com/04/11/23.htm)]Unfortunately, Kerry fell for Bush's infantile rhetorics, and this might well cost him the election.