Post by Mitch HanK Sauer on Apr 22, 2003 18:00:14 GMT -5
As semi-auto issue heats up...
Official denials, attacks and silence abound
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org
"The president supports the [semi-auto ban], and he supports
reauthorization of the current law" -- White House spokesman Scott
McClellan (The Washington Post, 4-12-03)
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Hats off to all of you who took action last week in response to the
White House's distressing announcement.
After GOA alerted activists like you, we saw almost 10,000 e-mails
generated to the White House IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS ALONE.
Many websites posted the GOA alert, and Internet news agencies
picked up GOA's message as well.
WorldNetDaily.com ran with the story and quoted GOA's Executive
Director as saying that this ban was "anti-Constitution and
anti-homeland security" since these guns are clearly protected by
the Second Amendment.
The Brady Campaign responded by attacking GOA as a "radical gun
group" that was calling for these guns to be "legal and available to
all."
How ironic. Aren't they the "radicals" who are out of step with the
American people?
After all, the overwhelming majority of the American people
correctly view the Second Amendment as safeguarding an individual
right. The Brady Bunch doesn't think it does.
Meanwhile, a poll on the KeepandBearArms.com website reports that
90% of the respondents will NOT vote for President Bush in 2004 if
he signs a bill reauthorizing the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein ban.
This would not be a surprise. Former President Clinton found out
just how unpopular this semi-auto ban was when he lost control of
the Congress as a result of it.
"The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats
in Congress," he told the Cleveland Plain Dealer after the election,
and is "the reason the Republicans control the House."
Well, he almost got it right. The real number of Congressmen who
lost their seats because of that ban was over 60, according to the
Dec/Jan 1995 issue of Campaigns & Elections magazine. And contrary
to Clinton's assertion, the semi-auto ban doesn't cover real
assault weapons at all.
Poor guy... Clinton never could get his facts straight.
But he was right about one thing. The ban did cost him control of
the Congress as gun owners abandoned the Democratic Party in droves.
Understandably, the recent Bush administration announcement has
touched a sensitive nerve in the pro-gun community.
Knight Ridder and The Washington Post carried the above statement by
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and a mini-firestorm has
resulted.
Some have speculated that with the President riding very high in the
polls as a result of the war, the White House was using the
opportunity to reveal its support for a very unpopular gun ban.
This may explain the timing of the announcement. Regardless, the
official response from the White House has been less than
encouraging.
Some of you reported that White House operators accused callers of
not knowing what they were talking about -- that there was no Scott
McClellan at the White House and that no such announcement had been
made.
(Yes, Scott McClellan is a spokesman for the White House; and you
can read the original news story at
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11013-2003Apr11 on the
Internet. McClellan's official title is: White House Deputy Press
Secretary.)
Others reported that White House staff would not discuss your
concerns unless you could give them the exact law number or the
exact section from the US Code. We have provided the White House
with the appropriate information, so hopefully that won't be a
problem anymore.
ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION:
Last week's GOA alert has resulted in thousands upon thousands of
e-mails going to the President. There is still no official
retraction from the White House, however.
If you haven't sent the pre-written e-mail to President Bush yet,
please go to www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to do so. For
those of you desiring additional ways to contact the President
regarding the semi-auto ban, you can use the following information
to call, fax or snail mail him:
President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Fax: 202-456-2461 or 202-456-1907
Phone: 202-456-1414
If you have not contacted the White House at all yet, please use
this opportunity to make your voice heard. It is absolutely vital
that we continue inundating the White House in opposition to this
ban, and that we do everything we can to repeal it. The pre-written
letter from last week's alert has been included below for your
convenience.
------ Pre-written message ------
Dear President Bush:
I oppose the Clinton-Feinstein ban on common household firearms.
And that is why I was surprised to hear White House spokesman Scott
McClellan say that you support the current ban, along with its
reauthorization (The Washington Post, April 12, 2003).
I am taken aback for a few reasons. First, you clearly ran on a
pro-gun platform in your race for the White House in 2000. As a
result, you were elected President because gun owners all over the
country went to the polls and voted for you. Most notably, pro-gun
voters delivered three key Democratic states into your column --
Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas. Without these three states,
Florida would never have been an issue.
Second, former President Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that
passage of the 1994 semi-auto ban cost him control of the Congress.
In other words, many Democrats lost their jobs because they voted
for this ban. Gun control is a losing issue politically.
Third, the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban is clearly unconstitutional and
outlaws the very guns and magazines that millions of people have
relied upon to defend their homes and families. The website of Gun
Owners of America gives the statistics showing that these banned
firearms are rarely used to commit crimes or murders -- in fact,
more Americans are killed by knives.
I hope that Scott McClellan was in error and that his statement does
not represent your views. And so I trust you will be open and
honest with me. Will you OPPOSE the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto ban
and OPPOSE its reauthorization?
Official denials, attacks and silence abound
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org
"The president supports the [semi-auto ban], and he supports
reauthorization of the current law" -- White House spokesman Scott
McClellan (The Washington Post, 4-12-03)
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Hats off to all of you who took action last week in response to the
White House's distressing announcement.
After GOA alerted activists like you, we saw almost 10,000 e-mails
generated to the White House IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS ALONE.
Many websites posted the GOA alert, and Internet news agencies
picked up GOA's message as well.
WorldNetDaily.com ran with the story and quoted GOA's Executive
Director as saying that this ban was "anti-Constitution and
anti-homeland security" since these guns are clearly protected by
the Second Amendment.
The Brady Campaign responded by attacking GOA as a "radical gun
group" that was calling for these guns to be "legal and available to
all."
How ironic. Aren't they the "radicals" who are out of step with the
American people?
After all, the overwhelming majority of the American people
correctly view the Second Amendment as safeguarding an individual
right. The Brady Bunch doesn't think it does.
Meanwhile, a poll on the KeepandBearArms.com website reports that
90% of the respondents will NOT vote for President Bush in 2004 if
he signs a bill reauthorizing the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein ban.
This would not be a surprise. Former President Clinton found out
just how unpopular this semi-auto ban was when he lost control of
the Congress as a result of it.
"The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats
in Congress," he told the Cleveland Plain Dealer after the election,
and is "the reason the Republicans control the House."
Well, he almost got it right. The real number of Congressmen who
lost their seats because of that ban was over 60, according to the
Dec/Jan 1995 issue of Campaigns & Elections magazine. And contrary
to Clinton's assertion, the semi-auto ban doesn't cover real
assault weapons at all.
Poor guy... Clinton never could get his facts straight.
But he was right about one thing. The ban did cost him control of
the Congress as gun owners abandoned the Democratic Party in droves.
Understandably, the recent Bush administration announcement has
touched a sensitive nerve in the pro-gun community.
Knight Ridder and The Washington Post carried the above statement by
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and a mini-firestorm has
resulted.
Some have speculated that with the President riding very high in the
polls as a result of the war, the White House was using the
opportunity to reveal its support for a very unpopular gun ban.
This may explain the timing of the announcement. Regardless, the
official response from the White House has been less than
encouraging.
Some of you reported that White House operators accused callers of
not knowing what they were talking about -- that there was no Scott
McClellan at the White House and that no such announcement had been
made.
(Yes, Scott McClellan is a spokesman for the White House; and you
can read the original news story at
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11013-2003Apr11 on the
Internet. McClellan's official title is: White House Deputy Press
Secretary.)
Others reported that White House staff would not discuss your
concerns unless you could give them the exact law number or the
exact section from the US Code. We have provided the White House
with the appropriate information, so hopefully that won't be a
problem anymore.
ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION:
Last week's GOA alert has resulted in thousands upon thousands of
e-mails going to the President. There is still no official
retraction from the White House, however.
If you haven't sent the pre-written e-mail to President Bush yet,
please go to www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to do so. For
those of you desiring additional ways to contact the President
regarding the semi-auto ban, you can use the following information
to call, fax or snail mail him:
President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Fax: 202-456-2461 or 202-456-1907
Phone: 202-456-1414
If you have not contacted the White House at all yet, please use
this opportunity to make your voice heard. It is absolutely vital
that we continue inundating the White House in opposition to this
ban, and that we do everything we can to repeal it. The pre-written
letter from last week's alert has been included below for your
convenience.
------ Pre-written message ------
Dear President Bush:
I oppose the Clinton-Feinstein ban on common household firearms.
And that is why I was surprised to hear White House spokesman Scott
McClellan say that you support the current ban, along with its
reauthorization (The Washington Post, April 12, 2003).
I am taken aback for a few reasons. First, you clearly ran on a
pro-gun platform in your race for the White House in 2000. As a
result, you were elected President because gun owners all over the
country went to the polls and voted for you. Most notably, pro-gun
voters delivered three key Democratic states into your column --
Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas. Without these three states,
Florida would never have been an issue.
Second, former President Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that
passage of the 1994 semi-auto ban cost him control of the Congress.
In other words, many Democrats lost their jobs because they voted
for this ban. Gun control is a losing issue politically.
Third, the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban is clearly unconstitutional and
outlaws the very guns and magazines that millions of people have
relied upon to defend their homes and families. The website of Gun
Owners of America gives the statistics showing that these banned
firearms are rarely used to commit crimes or murders -- in fact,
more Americans are killed by knives.
I hope that Scott McClellan was in error and that his statement does
not represent your views. And so I trust you will be open and
honest with me. Will you OPPOSE the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto ban
and OPPOSE its reauthorization?