Anti-Gunners Don Camo As 2006 Elections Loom

[Sid]

Tracking the recent history of the Second Amendment debate wouldn’t be complete without a look at the shifting tactics of the opposition. Our tireless efforts and resulting victories at the ballot box have made it clear that openly campaigning against the Second Amendment is a political loser. The anti-gun groups have undertaken a concerted effort to mask their long-term agenda, but only as a mark of pure, calculating political expedience.

It surprised no one when Handgun Control, Inc. (http://www.handguncontrol.org/), decided to change its name to the decidedly vague “Brady Campaign.” But the effort to paint the anti-gun agenda with the comfortable warmth of “gun safety” rhetoric moved from tactical to strategic with the formation of Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/) in July 2000. Funded solely by New York City dot-com billionaire Andrew McKelvey—previously a member of the Handgun Control, Inc., board of directors—AGS supported the same tired gun-control agenda, but portrayed itself as “bringing a new, centrist perspective to a long-polarized debate.”

In truth, it was staffed by a handful of longtime anti-gun strategists who were certainly vigorous in issuing countless press releases. But AGS never developed political credibility or power, because it had no members, no base of support and no grassroots strength. In due course, the group appeared to simply evaporate, and it now exists only as a website that hasn’t been updated in months.

Just in time for the new election cycle, the group would push the same anti-gun agenda and grant false credentials to politicians seeking to cloak themselves in the false veneer of rhetoric “supporting our rights.”

Now comes, as if on cue, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) (http://www.huntersandshooters.org/). The group’s self-description that pops up in Internet search engines is: “Countering years of polarized debate and restoring pride in America’s hunting and shooting heritage.” Gee, that polarized debate thing sounds familiar.

We’re not ashamed to defend our freedoms from attack, no matter how “polarizing” our critics may find it to be. That’s what builds credibility. Those who are “disillusioned” are welcome and in fact entitled, under the Constitution, to form their own association. But they should be prepared to be called out as liars if they cover up whom they really are and what they truly support. That’s why AHSA has no political credibility and never will.

The only thing emanating from the “AHSA pebble” is the stench of yet another cold, calculated attempt by the gun-ban lobby to thieve the hard-earned political credibility of gun owners and hunters.



Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=200)




Candidate Grades and Endorsements (http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/Default.aspx)

[CoreIssue]

Yea. Handgun Control spouted a ton of nonsense over the years.

No facts, just propoganda.

[Sid]

There is a bumper sticker that reads "Fear the government that fears your gun". That sticker reads true. Everyone knows of the UN's view of America's Second Amendment and we all know who cheers the mighty UN - yep, you guessed it - the Democrats. The liberal Democrat can see no wrong within the UN. They see a virtual heaven where everything is perfect, while the rest of us see a failing organization that has drifted from its original foundations. The UN was not created to legislate another country's gun laws, constitution, school system, or abortion laws. The UN would do a much better job if they would stick to their original purpose and give up dictating social issues that is none of their business to start with.

If Democrats win the election in November we will see a gun ban sweep across America that will make Bill Clinton's gun policies look like a Kindergarten child fighting over a popsicle. I am dead serious. People, if you want to maintain your rights according to the Second Amendment, you better wake up and keep these ultra-liberal politicians out of power. If you fail, then kiss your guns goodbye.

The fact of the matter is that gun bans do not work. Period. It only emboldens criminals that obtain guns illegally smuggled from nations who broke the very treaty they signed to keep international gun trades at bay. A citizen without a weapon makes for a very happy criminal. That criminal can rob and rape without the worry of being shot or stabbed in the process. However, a lady yielding a .40 caliber Glock tends to make a potential rapist back off.


The very presence of a firearm in some cases are enough to actually prevent a crime from happening.


Would a robber be more afraid of a homeowner with a 12 gauge shotgun full of buckshot or more afraid of a homeowner holding a telephone dialing 911? On average it takes about 15 minutes or longer for a police officer to arrive at a home after an emergency call. That's enough time for the criminal to have raped, robbed, and killed the person inside. However, if the person inside fires off a couple dozen rounds of 9mm shells, the criminal is guaranteed to be either full of holes or far away scared and hiding. Don't tell me that gun bans are good in making crime decrease because that's the biggest lie ever told.





Election 2006 and the 2nd Amendment (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=19548)

[Sid]

Here's a Future where millions understand, right down to gut level, that "gun control" kills. These future citizens know that civilian gun ownership makes the world safer and happier. This is the world we WILL have once a critical mass of people see the life-changing documentary film, Innocents Betrayed:

This world isn't perfect, but people are empowered to guard their families from harm. Children play safely under the protection of their mothers and fathers. This future resembles the "simpler, sweeter" times of the past. But it's better because there's so much less tyranny and violence lying ahead.

Criminals never know who might be able to fight back because nobody knows who's carrying guns. There are no government databases of gun owners. Nobody has to ask the government's permission to defend her own life.


Choose Your Future: With Guns and Freedom—or Without (http://www.jpfo.org/choosefuture.htm)

[Sid]

Is it that people conceal guns on their person and then are somehow more likely to be singled out for mugging or rape or murder? No, the fact of the matter is that the more likely someone is to be a victim of a crime the more likely they are to take steps to protect themselves.

Inevitably, one finds that many people are likely to be shot but those who take the responsibility for their own protection, learn how to use a firearm and properly carry a gun, concealed and licensed are less likely to be victims and more likely to be survivors.




Anti-Gun Rhetoric Zombifies Another (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=19884)