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 startribune.com 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 2^nd 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 2^nd Amendment rights.

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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 7^th.

Related Article:

• Before You Vote Third Party: The 2004 Factor
• Third Party Chess -- How to Know If Your Non-Bush Vote Will Endanger Gun Rights