Hidden Agenda: The truth behind John Kerry`s record on your fire…

Hidden Agenda
The truth behind John Kerry`s record on your firearms rights.

If you thought the eight long years of the Clinton/Gore
administration`s war on firearms owners` rights were oppressive,
they would pale in comparison to what John Kerry would have in
store for us if he captures the White House and evicts President
George W. Bush in November.

John Kerry–whose record of words and misdeeds on firearms rights
has earned him a key place among the most solid “F” candidates
ever rated by the National Rifle Association–is now posing as a
self-styled”lifelong hunter and gun owner,” a faux good old boy
who says, “I believe in the Second Amendment.”

But as someone who has hunted, he`s not one of us. He`s a
silver-spoon Boston Brahman–an ideological blood brother to his
mentor, Teddy Kennedy.

He`s married to a multi-millionaire heiress whose “favorite
charity,” the Tides Foundation, has pumped a small fortune into
anti-gun rights schemes.

Kerry, during his 20-year stint in the U.S. Senate, has been an
always reliable vote for the anti-gunners and has routinely voted
with the gun-ban movement since he was elected as the junior
member from Massachusetts. At the heart of the real John Kerry is
an unthinking zealot who has never missed an opportunity to work
to diminish our rights.

For his long history of anti-gun rights votes and positions, he
consistently receives a 100-percent rating from the Brady
Campaign (Handgun Control Inc.), the American Bar Association`s
Special Committee on Gun Violence and from the Coalition to Stop
Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns).
All of these groups deny the existence of an individual right to
keep and bear arms, and some are actively using the courts in an
attempt to destroy Americans` Second Amendment freedoms.

On issues directly affecting Second Amendment rights, Kerry has
voted 51 of 55 times against you on the floor of the Senate. For
all we`ve read lately about how enemies of the Second Amendment
are shying away from the “gun control” issue in this election
year, a series of votes in the U.S. Senate in March changed all
that, with Kerry eagerly taking center stage.

In working to sabotage s.1805–the NRA-backed legislation to stop
the endless series of predatory lawsuits aimed at strangling the
law-abiding firearms industry–Kerry voted to extend the Clinton
gun ban on semi-autos, to make now-legal private gun sales at gun
shows criminal acts, and voted to support Ted Kennedy`s
ammunition ban, which would have prohibited most centerfire
hunting rounds.Where Kerry says he “will defend hunting rights,”
the accolades of “animal rights” activists tell a different
story.

The Humane Society of the United States and Fund for
Animals–both rabidly anti-hunting–gave John Kerry a 100 percent
mark for the first session of the current Congress. They cited
John Kerry as among Senators who have “compiled consistently
excellent voting records on animal issues . . .” and who “have
emerged as animal protection leaders . . . Kerry has cosponsored
almost every piece of animal protection legislation . . .
introduced on behalf of animals.”

Kerry is the poster boy for a secret scheme hatched by
billionaire Andrew McKelvey`s Americans for Gun Safety, (ags)
whereby anti-gun rights Democratic candidates cloak themselves in
rhetorical camouflage, falsely claiming to embrace the Second
Amendment and trying to con hunters into believing that their
rights are somehow separate from those of other American gun
owners.

Don`t take my word for it. Here`s what ags wrote in its blueprint
for “Taking Back the Second Amendment,” prepared last year for
the Democratic Leadership Group (dlc). Kerry is following all the
dots.

It is a battle plan for deceit that counsels anti-gun rights
candidates: “The problem that Democrats have on the gun issue has
far less to do with the typical policies they espouse than the
rhetoric they employ.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, it`s not
how you vote, but what you say.

So, now confiscatory firearms prohibition is called “sensible gun
safety,” although the abhorrent concept of the
knock-in-the-middle-of-the night is just the same as it always
has been.

That theme of dissembling is amplified by an accompanying dlc
cover memo announcing, “The dlc and Americans for Gun Safety
(ags) believe that progressives need not change their positions
in order to dramatically reduce, and in some cases reverse,
conservative advantages with these groups.” (Emphasis added.)
Groups? Try NRA.

They are talking about lying, about sleight of hand,
trickery–basically outright fraud.

“Taking Back the Second Amendment” means recreating the Second
Amendment; twisting its clear meaning to the same dark purpose
expressed by then-President Clinton`s Solicitor General Seth
Waxman who wrote in an August 2000 letter to an NRA member: “In
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 to use a gun.”

Kerry is right in step with the ags-dlc war-plan: “progressives
need not change their positions.” Simply change the “rhetoric
they employ.”In working to sabotage the NRA-backed legislation to
stop the endless series of lawsuits aimed at strangling the
law-abiding firearms industry, Kerry read the ags
wolf-in-sheep`s-clothing script to a tee when the issue was
debated on March 4.

He told the Senate, “I believe strongly in the Second Amendment.
I believe in the right to bear arms as it has been interpreted in
our country” (emphasis added). This is a vital “qualifier” coming
from a man who, if elected president, would be nominating federal
judges and Supreme Court justices to interpret our rights.

Kerry and also-ran presidential candidate and trial lawyer John
Edwards were among those who cast the deciding votes on what
proved to be “poison pill” amendments to the lawsuit tort reform
bill: Dianne Feinstein`s 10-year extension of the Clinton
semi-auto ban and a new version of John McCain`s so-called “gun
show loophole” law, which would criminalize now-legal private
commerce between peaceable individuals at gun shows.

Kerry–during his national media performance on the Senate floor
–broke a missing-in-action streak that saw him absent from the
Senate for 65 percent of all votes in 2003 and every single vote
up to that date this year. It`s stunning: Out of 20 roll-call
votes in 2004, these gun ban votes were the first he cast in the
Senate all year.

But he was back–flying from his “super-Tuesday” primary
campaigning. Goring gun owners was apparently just too important
to miss–this month`s cover says it all.

During his Senate appearance, Kerry also went out of his way to
directly attack NRA members, saying, “Let`s be honest about what
we are facing today.” Referring to the Clinton gun ban, he said,
“The opposition to this common-sense gun safety law is being
driven by the powerful NRA special interest leadership and by
lobbyists in Washington. I don`t believe this is the voice of
responsible gun owners across America.”

— WITH CARBON COPY VOTING RECORDS ON GUN RIGHTS, A KERRY
PRESIDENCY WOULD BE, FOR GUN OWNERS, LIKE TED KENNEDY SITTING IN
THE OVAL OFFICE–IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT. —

Kerry`s attack on the NRA is part of a massive vilification
effort led by the Brady Campaign in which he and his surrogates
will try to discredit the good works and good reputation of our
organization and of those who belong to it, and those who support
our goals. It will be part of a race for the White House that
will be a campaign of demonization on one hand, deception on the
other.

That effort now includes a series of Brady Campaign ads that try
to paint NRA as a hate group and try to besmirch the character of
leaders like U.S. Senator Larry Craig, who superbly led the March
floor fight on behalf of gun owners.

When candidate Kerry talks about his undying support for the
Second Amendment, there are two words he never utters. In
announcing what he says he recognizes as a “right,” Kerry never
utters the word “individual.” And more importantly, he never
repeats the all-important word of the framers–”keep.” As we all
know, the Second Amendment says in part, ” . . . The right of
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Keeping arms: That means ordinary men and women owning guns;
possessing guns; keeping firearms for whatever peaceable reasons
we might have. You won`t find the full phrase–”the right to keep
and bear arms”–anywhere on his Web site, or in Kerry`s speeches,
his floor statement, his media interviews or press releases.
Kerry`s version of the Second Amendment is that Americans only
have the right to bear arms. That verbal sleight of hand fits
right in with what the ban-the-gun crowd wants–a future
declaration by a Kerry-packed U.S. Supreme Court that the Second
Amendment was never intended as an individual right, but that it
merely allows the states to muster forces to serve in the
National Guard.

Proof of that trickery came during Kerry`s Senate speech
supporting the Clinton gun ban on semi-automatic firearms. Kerry
told the Senate and the nation, “For those who want to wield
those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military.
And we welcome them.”

When Kerry talks about the Second Amendment, it is with crossed
fingers. And when he talks about the law-abiding men and women of
the National Rifle Association, it`s easy to hear the disdain in
his voice. In fact, his comparison of our organization with the
vilest of criminals is shocking.

“I`ve had the courage to stand up to those who would let our
communities be taken over by violence, whether it is organized
crime in Boston or standing up to the extremists in the NRA who
preach safety and enforcement, but practice extremism and block
common sense reform.”

That`s U.S. Senator John Kerry`s opener on the Americans for Gun
Safety`s Web site. He is actually comparing the 4 million
peaceable, law-abiding members of the National Rifle Association
to a handful of Boston mobsters, drug lords and a criminal
underclass. Clearly the biggest targets of Kerry`s wrath are the
NRA and NRA members.

If anyone is responsible for criminal violence, however, it is
those who coddle criminals. In truth, Kerry`s record on tough
federal measures to deal harshly with violent criminals speaks
volumes concerning his part in allowing “communities to be taken
over by violence.”

He has steadfastly opposed the death penalty for murderers and
rapists, and traitors. In 1996, he voted “No” to legislation that
would have limited death penalty appeals–appeals which mock
justice for victims by stretching out death sentences into de
facto life sentences for the most heartless and vicious
criminals.

In 1994, he voted “No” to mandatory prison terms for criminals
using firearms in the commission of crimes of violence or drug
trafficking.

He voted against international drug control funds; and against
increasing penalties for drug offenses.

His wimpy “give peace a chance” attitude on supporting the U.S.
military seems to spill over into his support for real law
enforcement.

From soft-on-criminals to hard-on-honest gun owners, Kerry
continues to try to hide his real record showing where he stands
on important issues. And if he thinks he`s fooling gun owners on
the Second Amendment, Kerry`s attempt to pass himself off as “a
lifetime hunter” is a bold play at getting the hunter vote,
despite his proven record of opposition to gun owners` rights.

And the response to this “I`m a Hunter” ploy in some quarters
shows just how much work NRA members have to do in the coming
months. Kerry`s Iowa pheasant hunt, staged as a photo-op for
willing media, brought accolades from some outdoor writers and
sportsmen, despite Kerry`s longstanding gun-ban tendencies.

“Some hunters also felt an instant kinship with Kerry,” wrote
James A. Swan on National Review Online. “As Ryan McKinney, the
Iowa farmer on whose property Kerry hunted, said, `It feels a
little safer if your presidential hopeful isn`t going to go after
your typical normal shotgun.`” (Emphasis added.)

But in reality, “your typical normal shotgun” is exactly what
Kerry is going after. It is exactly what he is on record as
wanting to ban.

He is a prime co-sponsor of s.1431, which would give a future
U.S. attorney general power to ban “any firearm” based on a
design “procured for use by the United States military or any
federal law enforcement agency”–arms which are presumed to be
“not particularly suitable for sporting purposes.”

The legislation specifically instructs the attorney general that
“a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable
for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for
use in a sporting event.”

So, if the Remington 1100, or 11-87, or 870 pump has ever been
procured by the U.S. military or by a federal law enforcement
agency, it is automatically presumed to be “not particularly
suitable for sporting purposes.” That means gun owners would not
be allowed to own them. And it also discounts the purposes for
which honest men and women might own those arms, including
hunting, as not recognized by the federal government as a
“legitimate sporting purpose.”

So truth is, Kerry would ban “your typical normal shotgun.” But
there is even more to it than that.

The precedent of what “sporting purpose” really means, in
practice, was covered by the 1989 U.S. Treasury Department import
ban that covered firearms the agency said, “although popular
among some gun owners for collection, self-defense, combat
competitions, or plinking, simply cannot be fairly characterized
as sporting rifles.” In the same breath, the Treasury Department
said its purpose was to “preserve the sportsman`s right to
sporting firearms.”

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that limits the purposes
for which peaceable individual Americans “keep” any arms.

Kerry`s Web site lays out several quotes from floor statements on
gun control. Remarkably, the citations are not from any official
journal of the United States Senate–not from the Congressional
Record. Instead, it says “Floor Statements: (Via Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence Web site).” Yes, Kerry`s own campaign Web site
links his supporters straight to the site of a gun-ban
organization to get to the meat of his beliefs on firearms
rights.

The Kerry campaign wants Web surfers to go there. It wants
gun-ban supporters to see his real positions on gun control–the
positions that earned him the highest marks for supporting the
most radical gun control schemes over the years.

On the pages of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (csgv),
firearms owners can also see what Kerry`s friends would do to our
Second Amendment rights if he takes the White House.

The Kerry puffery begins:

“John Kerry has voted with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100
percent of the time.” And it brags:

“John Kerry, in 2002 received an `f` from the National Rifle
Association and has a zero percent rating with Gun Owners of
America.”

Among the lengthy floor statements reproduced on those pages are
Kerry`s remarks promising to vote for the Brady waiting period
bill and taking a swipe at private firearms ownership:

“. . . it is not a big deal in terms of fighting crime. It is a
first step. I do not even know what kind of step, because it will
not change the fact that there are more privately owned weapons
in America than there are by the police, Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marines, National Guard and Coast Guard altogether.”

While John Kerry holds his nose, crosses his fingers and claims
support for his version of the Second Amendment, there is no such
transparent pretension on the part of the csgv. The bio of
Executive Director Josh Horwitz tells us where Kerry will go:

” . . . Horwitz had focused the organization`s efforts on closing
illegal firearms markets by eliminating unregulated transfers of
firearms, pursuing litigation against the gun industry . . . The
illegal market strategy included implementation of firearms
policies such as universal background checks, licensing, and
registration.”

Eliminating all unregulated transfers means criminalizing all
now-legal firearms commerce between innocent, peaceable private
citizens. Give a gun to a friend, go to jail.

The so-called “gun-show” loophole Kerry voted for as a killer
amendment to the NRA-backed lawsuit reform bill is a step toward
making criminals of any peaceable person transferring a firearm
without government permission. As for lawsuits that the
legislation was intended to curb, the csgv has vindictively
pursued the law-abiding firearms industry in the courts, with
Horwitz bluntly telling the Tampa Tribune, “There`s not a pot of
gold at the end of this. There might be a bunch of bankrupt
companies.”

The csgv and Horwitz were deeply involved in the worst of a long
series of legal actions including the most outrageous–the naacp
New York lawsuit. The suit–which ultimately lost–cost tens of
millions of dollars to defend, and was bankrolled by billionaire
George Soros. Soros also largely funded the Million Mom March and
has funded the Brady Campaign in its efforts to demonize the NRA,
and has a bigger goal–a global civil disarmament agenda.

So when Kerry broke his 100 percent streak of missing Senate
votes to join his allies Kennedy, Schumer and Feinstein in adding
poisonous amendments designed to bring down firearm tort reform,
he was saving the bleed-out-the firearms-industry agenda of his
pr benefactor, the csgv, and of its billionaire sugar daddy
George Soros.

In turn, Soros is pouring tens of millions of dollars into
radical leftist “progressive” groups that claim to be outside the
new Federal Campaign Finance Law and who are running massive
sleight-of-hand stealth campaigns to defeat President George W.
Bush and elect Kerry. Among the activities those Soros groups are
undertaking are unrestricted broadcast attack advertising
intended to defeat Bush. Of course, for groups like NRA, such
advertising during pre-election blackout periods would constitute
criminal acts. Ironically, this campaign finance law was enacted
largely through Soros` massive funding of special interest
“reform” groups pushing the anti-free speech legislation.

It is an evil circle.

Soros–whose Open Society Institute proclaimed that it had worked
“to reduce the corrupting influence of very large donors to
political parties and candidates”–is spending all he wants to
buy the White House for John Kerry. And if he succeeds, he will
attempt to buy the destruction of the Second Amendment, and to
buy influence over Senate consent to Kerry nominees to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Of course, that Supreme Court holds freedom`s very future. At
stake is the control of government by zealots who have little
regard for the real rights of individual Americans, and who see
this next four years as an opportunity to change our system from
a government of the people, by the people and for the people to a
system where the people are merely servants of government.

And at the heart of that threatened change is who will fill
upcoming vacancies in the United States Supreme Court. In the
last year, we saw a slim 5-to-4 majority of that court deal a
terrible blow to the First Amendment, declaring an obviously
unconstitutional ban on political free speech to be
constitutional. It was unthinkable.

Imagine if the enemies of the Second Amendment were able, through
a Kerry presidency, to install their puppets on that court in the
near future. That`s what we are all facing in this election. If
Kerry can pack the court with people like Chuck Schumer, the
Second Amendment as an individual right will be rendered null and
void.

Posted: 6/1/2004 Find this item at:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=136