Keep and Bear Arms
Home Members Login/Join About Us News/Editorials Archives Take Action Your Voice Web Services Free Email
You are 1 of 945 active visitors Thursday, May 23, 2024
Main Email List:

State Email Lists:
Click Here
Join/Renew Online
Join/Renew by Mail
Make a Donation
Magazine Subscriptions
KABA Memorial Fund
Advertise Here
Use KABA Free Email




Keep and Bear Arms - Vote In Our Polls
Do you oppose Biden's anti-gun executive orders?

Current results
Earlier poll results
4739 people voted



» U.S. Gun Laws
» AmeriPAC
» NoInternetTax
» Gun Show On The Net
» 2nd Amendment Show
» SEMPER FIrearms
» Colt Collectors Assoc.
» Personal Defense Solutions



News & Editorials
time to take a stand
It's Time to Take a Stand
Dave McPhail


Time is running short. It is Friday night. The Friday night before the 2000 election next Tuesday November 7, 2000. This is probably the most important presidential election in our lifetimes.

In a story of Thursday November 2, 2000 by Brigitte Greenberg - an Associated Press Writer, Joe Lieberman is quoted as saying "Al Gore and I respect the Second Amendment right to bear firearms. That's in the Constitution. No hunter, sportsperson or law-abiding citizen will lose any rights they have under our proposals,"

What I would like to do here is break this statement down and analyze it piece by piece.

Lieberman says that he and Algore "respect the Second Amendment right to bear firearms. That's in the Constitution." OK, so here is a Vice Presidential candidate, the running-mate of the current Vice President, stating unequivocally that the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

That being said, there should be no further need for any discussion on whether or not the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights applies to individuals. At this point it should be a done deal. Game over, we win.

Lieberman is making this statement as a declaration of an Algore/Lieberman administration's position on the Second Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are, however, problems with this position when one considers his statements a bit further.

Lieberman statement continues: "No hunter, sportsperson or law-abiding citizen will lose any rights they have under our proposals,"

This comment is somewhat puzzling considering that under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, hunters and sportspersons, --whatever the hell a "sportsperson" is-- has no inherent right to hunt game. Why do I say this? Because, before a hunter can legally take a deer, elk, moose, bear, sheep, boar, duck, goose, pheasant, quail, or whatever game animal one desires, the hunter must obtain a permit. In general, a hunter cannot shoot any game without the requisite permit, which limits the number of animals that can be taken. Further, a fee is paid for said permit. Shooting game coupled with a failure to obtain a hunting permit is called "poaching" which is illegal. A person caught poaching is subject to stiff fines and incarceration.

Hunting is regulated by the government and is not to be considered a right. To do so would be folly.

I say this is puzzling because by including hunters in his statement Lieberman is attempting to set the stage for the future. In this Lieberman future the Algore/Lieberman administration would be in a better position to narrow the meaning of the Second Amendment.

By mistakenly considering hunting to be a right the result could be complacency by hunters. Hunters need to be aware that the Constitution guarantees them no rights to hunt. If such a time comes that handguns, semi-auto loading rifles and shotguns are confiscated, hunters would not and could not expect protection of the Constitution of their rights to hunt. States could render their ability to hunt a moot point by simply declining to offer a hunting license or permit. One must remember that what the government giveth, the government taketh away. At that point, there would be no reason for the government to refrain from confiscating rifles and shotguns used for hunting. [See Britain.] By this time we should assume that you would no longer have an opportunity to take a deer or bear with your 10", scoped Ruger Super Blackhawk.

So, we must not consider hunting to be a right and that the issue we are faced with as regards the Second Amendment is not hunting.

Next, what are sportspersons anyway?

Are sportspersons people who shoot clay pigeons with shotguns? Or are sportspersons people who are involved with IDPA, or IPSC competition? Are sportspersons Cowboy Action Shooters? Are sportspersons U.S. Olympic shooters, who by the way received almost no media coverage in Australia recently? I doubt that anyone involved in these types of shooting sports would qualify as "sportspersons" under the Algore/Lieberman "proposals."

What would happen to your $3,500.00 Bianchi Cup racegun under an Algore/Leiberman administration? What would happen to your prized Pin Gun? Would silhouette shooting become illegal? (I recently heard that one mid-west municipality made it illegal to shoot at silhouette targets. The reported reason? Because they are black. Is that why I'm now seeing BLUE silhouette targets?) Would we be reduced to paintball guns and air guns as are the citizens of other countries? [There are many areas in America where you cannot shoot at a human silhouette.]

Lieberman's statement is just too ambiguous for comfort.

However, in light of Lieberman's comment why should law-abiding gun owners, supporters of the 2nd Amendment, supporters of one's right to protect self and family and home even have to be concerned about losing their rights to keep and bear arms?

Let's look at Lieberman's congressional voting record to determine if we could trust him or if we should be concerned about his position on our 2nd Amendment rights.

06/28/1991 - Handgun Waiting Period - Amendment - the Senator voted for a five-working day waiting period for handguns.  [Make a woman wait to get a gun to defend against a stalker that has threatened her life? Vote Gore/Lieberman.]

11/20/1993 - Brady Bill - Passage - The Senator voted for the Brady Bill.  [Backdoor registration? Joe likes it.]

11/19/1993 - Brady Bill - Waiting Period Sunset - The Senator voted against the Brady Bill sunset;

11/17/1993 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement - The Senator voted to ban so-called "assault weapons". [See assault weapons articles, and ask why Liberman would vote to take away militia rifles from honest citizens.]

11/09/1993 - Kill Semiautomatic Assault Weapon Ban - The Senator voted against killing the "assault weapon" ban. [Let the militia have their rifles back? Heavens no!]

It should be noted that the Senator attempted to exclude certain Colt firearms from the "assault weapon" ban --to no avail-- because Colt is in the Senator's home state of Connecticut. While I would love to have seen Colt's firearms excluded in such a ban there is virtually no difference in Colt's AR-15 and Ruger's Mini-14 and other semi-auto loading rifles except in appearance. This is especially true when one considers that the cartridge used by both the Colt and the Ruger, the .223, is considered by many to be an under-powered and ineffective round.

Therefore, if an exclusion was appropriate for Colt then why ban any semi-auto loading rifle? Simply to satisfy liberal's need for feel good legislation.  [And to disarm the militia.]

These so-called "assault weapons" were banned because DiFi and others do not have the slightest understanding about firearms.

They banned rifles that they determined had no legitimate sporting value. Apparently they have never even watched a three-gun competition utilizing a handgun, shotgun and semi-auto rifle.

They banned these rifles because they obviously don't know the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15. In other words, they were banned because of their similarity in appearance.

They banned them because they are part of the socialist ruling elite who knows better than we do what is good for us and what is bad for us. We are as little children who need to be watched over lest we harm others or ourselves.

They banned these rifles and magazines having a capacity of more than 10 rounds, as another in a long line of incremental steps to ban all privately owned firearms.

Senator Lieberman's congressional record is one of staunch adherence to the party line of liberal elitists who are determined to disarm us making us all potential victims of violent crime.

But remember that Lieberman says that he and Algore "respect the Second Amendment right to bear firearms. That's in the Constitution." So let's exam the record of the man with whom Senator Lieberman has allied himself:  Algore, the Vice President in an administration that has to date made it clear to one and all that the federal government knows no bounds when it comes to creating millions of potential violent crime victims.

According to the above cited news article Algore supports licensing future handgun buyers and expanding background checks. The article states: 

"Earlier in the campaign, he would hold aloft his proposal to require photo IDs for new handgun purchases, background checks at gun shows, a ban on junk guns and an increase in the handgun purchase age from 18 to 21. Now, he rarely spells out the restrictions he favors, but emphatically says that nothing he has proposed would interfere with the rights of hunters."

Once again I will remind you that hunters have no constitutional rights to hunt.

Also we can't miss how he has seen the light, as it were, that "gun-control" is a losing issue in this election and has softened his public stance on gun-control. This is just another of his infamous flip-flops.

Algore says that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document." Well, it just ain't so. The Constitution is not living or breathing. It wasn't designed to change with the times. What it says is what it means. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights weren't meant to be interpreted based on the ruling party's whim.

But, Algore would interpret the 2nd Amendment to suit his political agenda. We all know what the Klinton/Algore government prosecutors in the "Emerson" case said about an individual's right to keep and bear arms. They contend that the 2nd Amendment doesn't extend firearm ownership to the individual.

Without rehashing Algore's position on private firearm ownership -- we all know what that position is, one of registration and confiscation -- we know that these people have no respect for us or for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Algore and Lieberman and other socialist, elitist liberals (DiFi, Boxer, Klinton, Schumer, et al) would rather see us become victims of violent crime at the hands of criminals who obviously have more rights under the law than we do.

Therefore, it is imperative that we tell all the would-be gun-grabbers in this country that their time is up. All their gun laws have done is to create a burden on law-abiding people. These laws have done nothing of consequence (if anything) to stem the tide of violent crime. It is time to tell the Sarah Brady's of the country "This far and no farther."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Algore must be defeated November 7th.

Related Article:


Print This Page
Mail To A Friend
"Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004)

COPYRIGHT POLICY: The posting of copyrighted articles and other content, in whole or in part, is not allowed here. We have made an effort to educate our users about this policy and we are extremely serious about this. Users who are caught violating this rule will be warned and/or banned.
If you are the owner of content that you believe has been posted on this site without your permission, please contact our webmaster by following this link. Please include with your message: (1) the particulars of the infringement, including a description of the content, (2) a link to that content here and (3) information concerning where the content in question was originally posted/published. We will address your complaint as quickly as possible. Thank you.

NOTICE:  The information contained in this site is not to be considered as legal advice. In no way are Keep And Bear Arms .com or any of its agents responsible for the actions of our members or site visitors. Also, because this web site is a Free Speech Zone, opinions, ideas, beliefs, suggestions, practices and concepts throughout this site may or may not represent those of Keep And Bear Arms .com. All rights reserved. Articles that are original to this site may be redistributed provided they are left intact and a link to is given. Click here for Contact Information for representatives of is the leading provider of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and digital certificate solutions used by enterprises, Web sites, and consumers to conduct secure communications and transactions over the Internet and private networks., Inc. © 1999-2024, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy