Al Gore's War Against
Firearms And Self-Defense
All of US
If elected to the presidency Gore may ban lawful Americans from owning guns.
Gored has already destroyed many Americans lives by being the deciding vote on NAFTA! Many manufacturing jobs have left America & consequently, many families have been hurt. Have you followed his involvement with Chinagate? Gore's Dad was in China with his company owned by Armour Hammer.
Don't vote for Gore because it is better to be ambushed, at least you will have a fighting chance. When you vote for the lesser of 2 evils there is never a good choice.
Why is it that Senators & Congressman can have jobs for life & the president only 2 terms? Isn't 2 terms enough for any politician?
Please read the accompanying article.
Katman
Al Gore's War Against Firearms And Self-Defense
By Ray Thomas
© 2000 By Ray Thomas
10-31-00
If you want to lose your right to self defense, just elect Al Gore to the presidency. He has given us ample proof that he is unalterably against your right to defend yourself from criminals (be they the common variety or working for him). He has said so many times in many ways:
On July 13, 1999: "But one thing would be clear: unless you obtain a license, pass a background check, and pass a gun safety test, you could not buy a handgun...anywhere in America".
On July 16, 1999 he said: "I think we should ban so-called junk guns...These automatic, semi-automatic handguns and assault weapons have no place in our society".
And again on July 13, 1999: "I believe all gun manufacturers and federally licensed dealers should have to report handgun sales to a state authority".
On http://www.Gore2000.org is written: "Vice-President Gore supports the rights of local governments to sue gun manufacturers and sellers". For what? For making a legal product carried by every law enforcement officer for self protection and making them available to others for the same reason? One thing is certain: you're never going to stop criminals and crazies from obtaining the guns with which they will commit their crimes. They don't obey laws. When gun laws are tight, they just buy them on the black market. Criminals like tight gun laws. That means fewer of their victims will likely be armed. And criminals prefer unarmed victims.
But I digress.
Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote to close down all gun shows, create a national registry of firearms owners (in preparation for confiscation), and impose a new, unlimited tax on all gun purchases (a feature of every power-grab). He has called for a complete ban on all semi-automatic handguns and, as you can see from his quotes, advocates the illegal government-funded lawsuits to extort money from the American firearms industry and bankrupt them. He supports mandatory (they like that word) government testing and photo-licensing for all firearms purchasers (the better to find them when time comes to confiscate their guns). He favors a waiting period on all gun purchases (to give the people threatening others, especially wives and girlfriends of abusive men, time to kill them before they can get a gun to protect themselves) and a nationwide "one gun a month" law (the better to slow down gun purchases until they can be banned altogether).
Regardless of the Second Amendment, he opposes the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use the best tool for self defense, the firearm, vowing to fight any effort by Congress to recognize the right to carry a gun to defend themselves from criminals, who don't obey gun laws anyway. He helped Bill Clinton pass the most enormous set of new federal gun control laws since 1968, and to direct federal regulatory agencies to attack gun ownership in any way possible.
This has made the Clinton-Gore White House the most anti-self defense administration in history. And he wants to continue it for another four or eight years.
The Solicitor General of the United States, when asked about it by a member of the National Rifle Association, said this: The position of the United States government is "that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not extend to the people as an individual right". That "In the light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or use a gun".
What unmitigated gall! This jerk thinks that just because he says it, that makes it so. It is not, by any means, "settled". He completely forgets, or ignores the fact that no other constitutional amendment gives a power to the government. That the Constitution of the United States does just one thing: it spells out, in great detail, what the federal government cannot do. So where the Hell does he get off telling a citizen a lie as a "ruling" of a government lawyer? To do so has discredited him. No one will now be able to trust any ruling he ever makes again.
But he doesn't care. He's just continuing "the party line" as dictated by Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Self defense is a "birthright". And the founding fathers wanted to make sure we would continue to have this right and the right to own and use the means to accomplish it. Their only mistake was in adding that "descriptive precursor" to the constitutional Amendment. That allowed the power seekers, whose very grip on power depends on the populace being disarmed, to confuse the issue by claiming that they meant "The National Guard", which did not exist at the time and was not even thought about. They could not have meant that because at the time, "militia" was all the people.
So if you want to lose the right to defend yourself, either from "honest" criminals (who don't deny they're criminals) or from those criminals operating under the illegal laws that have been made to protect them (you know, government agents), just vote for Al Gore or any other candidate who has promised to disarm you and make you "fair game" for any kind of criminal whether or not he/she wears a badge.
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL.
www.SierraTimes.com
All Common Law Rights are reserved explicitly without prejudice
UCC 1-103, 1-105, 1-207.
"NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER"
I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice! Let me make that perfectly plain, clear and mutually agreed, that, and I repeat, I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice! This is my private opinion; I am only sharing information! Notice to agent is notice to principle and notice to principle is notice to agent. For those who would violate my privacy by intercepting this private communication, I fully reserve all of my absolute (sovereign) natural (natural by law) "creator endowed" inherent Rights! I also choose to exercise my Right of remedy In the event that any party attempts to use this writing in any proceeding of any kind! I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information! I could be wrong about all of it! Hereinafter "disclaimer". From now on until further notice the "disclaimer" is presumed in any further private or personal or public or official communication from me to you. "Disclaimer"
This letter open to suggestions, improvements, and comments.
Questions and Comments: Email Katman
