Fighting For the American "Right to Fear" in the 2008 Transition
The annual meeting of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in May of America's 2009 transition to a Democratic leadership after eight-years of Republican rule was described by The Arizona Daily Star on May 16 as a "Republican rally.
" Reporting on the same event that day, CNN described the 60,000 attendees as fearful of what Democrats "may do," even though gun control legislation had not been pushed by the new administration, to the dismay of its advocates.
National Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele warned of an attempt to "erode" gun rights and also of the new President's mission to "redistribute wealth," according to the Arizona paper.
World Government dreamers were attacking core American values, it quoted NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre as saying, also adding that gun rights advocates were "suspicious" of the new President who had expressed support for a ban on assault weapons.
According to CNN, he had only supported a restriction on their sales.
In April on CBS's Face the Nation, LaPierre stated that any ban on assault weapons would ultimately lead to a ban on all weapons by legal definition, which was a threat to both the United States Constitution and its second amendment on the "right to bear arms.
" The interpretation ignored a link between the individual right to bear arms and that of a country to maintain a militia in a phrasing subject to legal interpretation, some holding that "the right of a people to keep and bear arms" referred to national security while others, such as LaPierre, held that the right extended to individuals.
The terminology may have been clarified if assault weapons such as uzis and AK-47 rocket launchers had been foreseen on America's streets.
The weapons were banned for 10 years under a Democratic administration before Congress failed to renew the ban during the 2004 Republican leadership.
According to the April 19 CBS transcript, 40 American police officers were killed or seriously wounded with such weapons since the ban was lifted and nearly every police organization supported the ban.
The gun enthusiasts at the May 2009 NRA "Republican" rally were not reported as voicing ambivalence about guns of any kind, or as concerned with the views of law enforcement authorities.
Generalities replaced those nuances, as in the words of one NRA lobbyist who gave credit to the new President for having boosted gun and ammunition sales with his election since stocks were being replenished in fear of Democrats approving a ban against them.
"Our rights are under attack like never before and at all levels of government," the lobbyist told the Daily Star.
Arizona's Governor said in a speech that her state was NRA country and an example of the NRA's values in action.
Those included the defense of freedom and of personal responsibility.
Those two "core" American values were juxtaposed that same weekend by another conservative action, that of protests against the new President's appearance at Indiana's Catholic Notre Dame University.
At issue was the President's public record of "pro-choice" views on the right of persons to make decisions about their individual bodies.
The two events demonstrated an obvious contradiction in the conservative stand on issues.
Opposition to the "right to choose" on the premise of preserving the sanctity of life was in direct conflict with the fight to preserve the right to own deadly assault weapons that killed innocents charged with enforcing the rule of law.
Only one conclusion could be drawn.
Fervid emotion rather than logic was involved.
America's ex-Vice-President provided the prime example of the strong emotions motivated by either fear or the "will to control.
" His stepped up efforts since the election to spread fear were widely covered, as in his May 21 address to the American Enterprise Institute right after the new President reiterated his plan for the country's security after his first major defeat in securing Congressional approval for the closure of the controversial Guantanamo prison.
The prison was a Republican response to the heinous 9/11 attack against the United States in a strategy that included the waging of war on a foreign country under false pretenses and adoption of pre-emptive defensive measures that isolated the country's administration not only from other countries in a globalizing world but also from its own people.
Only twenty percent approved of the administration's performance by the time it vacated office.
That conservative Republican administration was solidly ousted in 2008 by American voters who recognized the need for America to adapt to a global world.
By that act, they took a gamble on electing the western industrialized world's first non-white leader as the one most capable of addressing country's new needs in an unprecedented direction.
Described as "the conciliator" in a 2007 New Yorker article, that leader weathered well the traditional "first 100" days with an approval rating in the high sixty-percentage range in the euphoria of America having proved out its tradition as the "land of opportunity.
" But soon after that landmark, signs of the real challenge before America emerged.
As an example, the new President's efforts to win support for legislation to protect credit card holders against unfair banking practices the same day as his setback on the closing of the Guantanamo prison came with another setback in the form of an unrelated provision that called for allowing loaded weapons to be carried in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The rapid onslaught of those setbacks so soon after the traditional "first 100 days," was a signal to "the conciliator".
It said that reason and progress made sense but that both fear and the "will to power" were strong motivators to be invoked for the next mid-term election less than two years away.
" Reporting on the same event that day, CNN described the 60,000 attendees as fearful of what Democrats "may do," even though gun control legislation had not been pushed by the new administration, to the dismay of its advocates.
National Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele warned of an attempt to "erode" gun rights and also of the new President's mission to "redistribute wealth," according to the Arizona paper.
World Government dreamers were attacking core American values, it quoted NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre as saying, also adding that gun rights advocates were "suspicious" of the new President who had expressed support for a ban on assault weapons.
According to CNN, he had only supported a restriction on their sales.
In April on CBS's Face the Nation, LaPierre stated that any ban on assault weapons would ultimately lead to a ban on all weapons by legal definition, which was a threat to both the United States Constitution and its second amendment on the "right to bear arms.
" The interpretation ignored a link between the individual right to bear arms and that of a country to maintain a militia in a phrasing subject to legal interpretation, some holding that "the right of a people to keep and bear arms" referred to national security while others, such as LaPierre, held that the right extended to individuals.
The terminology may have been clarified if assault weapons such as uzis and AK-47 rocket launchers had been foreseen on America's streets.
The weapons were banned for 10 years under a Democratic administration before Congress failed to renew the ban during the 2004 Republican leadership.
According to the April 19 CBS transcript, 40 American police officers were killed or seriously wounded with such weapons since the ban was lifted and nearly every police organization supported the ban.
The gun enthusiasts at the May 2009 NRA "Republican" rally were not reported as voicing ambivalence about guns of any kind, or as concerned with the views of law enforcement authorities.
Generalities replaced those nuances, as in the words of one NRA lobbyist who gave credit to the new President for having boosted gun and ammunition sales with his election since stocks were being replenished in fear of Democrats approving a ban against them.
"Our rights are under attack like never before and at all levels of government," the lobbyist told the Daily Star.
Arizona's Governor said in a speech that her state was NRA country and an example of the NRA's values in action.
Those included the defense of freedom and of personal responsibility.
Those two "core" American values were juxtaposed that same weekend by another conservative action, that of protests against the new President's appearance at Indiana's Catholic Notre Dame University.
At issue was the President's public record of "pro-choice" views on the right of persons to make decisions about their individual bodies.
The two events demonstrated an obvious contradiction in the conservative stand on issues.
Opposition to the "right to choose" on the premise of preserving the sanctity of life was in direct conflict with the fight to preserve the right to own deadly assault weapons that killed innocents charged with enforcing the rule of law.
Only one conclusion could be drawn.
Fervid emotion rather than logic was involved.
America's ex-Vice-President provided the prime example of the strong emotions motivated by either fear or the "will to control.
" His stepped up efforts since the election to spread fear were widely covered, as in his May 21 address to the American Enterprise Institute right after the new President reiterated his plan for the country's security after his first major defeat in securing Congressional approval for the closure of the controversial Guantanamo prison.
The prison was a Republican response to the heinous 9/11 attack against the United States in a strategy that included the waging of war on a foreign country under false pretenses and adoption of pre-emptive defensive measures that isolated the country's administration not only from other countries in a globalizing world but also from its own people.
Only twenty percent approved of the administration's performance by the time it vacated office.
That conservative Republican administration was solidly ousted in 2008 by American voters who recognized the need for America to adapt to a global world.
By that act, they took a gamble on electing the western industrialized world's first non-white leader as the one most capable of addressing country's new needs in an unprecedented direction.
Described as "the conciliator" in a 2007 New Yorker article, that leader weathered well the traditional "first 100" days with an approval rating in the high sixty-percentage range in the euphoria of America having proved out its tradition as the "land of opportunity.
" But soon after that landmark, signs of the real challenge before America emerged.
As an example, the new President's efforts to win support for legislation to protect credit card holders against unfair banking practices the same day as his setback on the closing of the Guantanamo prison came with another setback in the form of an unrelated provision that called for allowing loaded weapons to be carried in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The rapid onslaught of those setbacks so soon after the traditional "first 100 days," was a signal to "the conciliator".
It said that reason and progress made sense but that both fear and the "will to power" were strong motivators to be invoked for the next mid-term election less than two years away.
