1935 will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future! -Adolph Hitler prior to confiscating all civilian firearms

Our police are hampered by the lack of full gun registration. We need to follow the lead of other civilized nations in securing our streets!
-Bill Clinton

And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that...
– Bill Clinton, 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.
– Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, Nov. 18, 1993

Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
– U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden

By making real the threat of civil damages against gun dealers who engage in reckless conduct, we are starting to provide a powerful incentive for dealers to...reevaluate the cost of doing business.
– Sarah Brady, Handgun Control Inc

I'm personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.
– Hillary Clinton, Nov. 4, 1993 New York Times

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them: "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I *could not* do that. The votes weren't here.
– U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA),
CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"In Illinois there is a real sanctity in regard to guns that, frankly, I don't understand"
-Rod Blagojevich 1993

-In a 1996 voter survey for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization Blagojevich advocated a ban on handguns--a position Blagojevich now insists he never held.

***************************************
Above is the Democratic/Socialist view of our constitutional rights as THEY see them. These are the views that are trying to take control of the state of Illinois. Rod Blajoyivitch, Mayor Daley and the Chicago Democrats have been at the fore of this view. Dick Durbin and his Democratic cohorts in the United States Senate are fighting with the Bush Administration over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush say that the 2nd Amendment stands for an individual right to bear arms, where the Dems contend that it gives the right to the states. Below are some quotes from our founders. You decide.
***************************************

"The strongest reason for the People to retain the Right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.
-Alexander Hamilton

...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..
– George Mason

...to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly antirepublican principle...
– Patrick Henry

CONGRESS shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
– James Madison

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
– George Washington

First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.
– Patrick Henry

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

The constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the united states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -
– Alexander Hamilton

The choice is yours. Who's views should prevail? Get involved in this election before it's to late !!

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held two hearings on the Iraqi war. Just two. Then, along with the rest of Congress, it adjourned for summer vacation. Undoubtedly it will resume hearings when Congress reconvenes. But, my fellow Americans, is this sufficient?

The issue of whether or not we should go to war should be the subject of a Great Debate, similar to other great debates that have stimulated our people. I am not too young to remember the Great Debate of the latter 1940s, when leaders thrashed out our response to world Communism.

Former President Herbert Hoover and Sen. Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio) argued that we should retreat to Fortress America; others, including John Foster Dulles, insisted that we should take a world position on the issue. Quite simply, there should be a joint congressional committee holding hearings on the issue of Iraq--for many reasons.

First, the Bush administration is declaring quite openly that it is committed to the removal of Saddam Hussein. What is the purpose of the frequent warnings not accompanied by any mention of a declared war?

Second, strategic war plans are being leaked from inside the Pentagon to liberal newspapers known for their opposition to the Bush administration and its plans for war. If this isn't an act of near treason, nothing is. It shows that someone in the Pentagon does not want to go to war. That is a dangerous posture and requires a total airing of views in public so our citizens are aware of the pros and cons.

Third, a mere congressional hearing, even if held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, does not command total national attention. What is required is a joint hearing that is televised in the same scope as the Watergate or Clinton impeachment hearings were. The prospect of thousands of American lives being committed to war is at least as important--and vastly more so--than the aforesaid hearings.

Fourth, a televised joint congressional hearing should cast a wider net than Foreign Relations has done so far. Former presidents of the United States who are able to testify should be invited to do so. In addition, the considered opinions of former secretaries of state should be added, including those of Henry Kissinger. Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf should testify. Patrick Buchanan, the leading exponent of American nationalism in foreign policy, should give his views.

Fifth, there should be a theological component. What is the morality of a nation making a preemptive strike against Iraq by citing it as a defensive gesture? I think it can be supported. I would like to hear from some theologians on the issue.

Since the Bush administration has assured that the strike against Iraq will not come this fall so as to overhang the elections, there is time sufficient to schedule a joint hearing. The joint hearing should be called by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and should be conducted by a select panel of lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), known as a hawk, and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a cautious dove. Obviously, the chairmen of the respective international relations committees should participate, including Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.).

The joint committee would sponsor a Great Debate that, given wide television coverage, would educate our people. I for one feel that the leaks from the Pentagon presage an attempt to derail a prospective war. That comes from the belief that the people need to be more adequately informed. To be informed, we need to have a thorough airing of the issue.

If the Bush administration wishes not to testify so as to keep its options open, very well. But at least the hearing will provide support for concerted action, including a declaration of war which, if the situation warrants, I hope the president would request.

Democrats, some in the media and many pundits have assumed that the stock market falling over the last few months spelled doom for President Bush and the Republican Party. This assumption was based on the fact that so many people have investments in the market and have experienced losses. It was assumed that these investors would blame Republicans. Some "renowned" pollsters and pundits even went as far as to assert that the anger among this group of voters would mean serious trouble for the Republican Party.

I hesitate to bring this up (not really), but the facts dispute these conclusions. In January of this year Republicans had a generic ballot advantage of eight points among voters who invest (Republicans 40% to
Democrats 32%). Among voters who do not invest, Democrats had an advantage of one or two points. Again, keep in mind voters who invest out number non-investors by two to one. At this time, President Bush’s approval rating was in the mid-80’s with both groups.

Today, in the latest tracking polls, Republicans have a net generic ballot advantage of 13 points (45% for Republicans and 32% for Democrats) among investors. This is a net increase of five points since January of this year among voters who have been hardest hit by a decline in the stock market! Among voters who do not invest, Democrats have an eighteen-point advantage.
Non-investing voters are dominated to a large degree by Democratic partisans. Again, investing voters far outnumber non investors, which is why when you
look at the whole group of voters, the generic ballot number is tied, which it has been for six months.

Further, currently President Bush enjoys an approval rating in the mid-70’s among investors, and an approval rating in the low 70’s among non-investors. Thus, while we predicted the President’s approval rating would slowly decline over time, his decline among investing voters has actually been slower than among non-investors. Again, not supporting the pundit speculation.

So the question is why? There are several reasons. First, investing voters, as a whole are more optimistic than non-investors because they are in the market. While investors are worried about their retirement and savings, they understand better the cyclical nature of stock fluctuations and movement. They generally have an attitude that even though things are not where they would like them, the market has a tendency to rise over time. Second, the investing voters see the government playing a reduced role in the very large historic economic cycles. Though they list the economy as their number one issue and
desire further action, they have a pretty realistic understanding of the ebb and flow of business growth. While they want the political sphere to play a constructive role and believe that policies like tax cuts, corporate accountability rules with tough enforcement and free trade can assist in positive movement, these voters understand that the economy follows long term
patterns not necessarily dictated by hour by hour partisan back and forth. Interestingly, while Republicans have faired worse over the last few months among non-investors, the number one issue among non-investors is education, not the economy as it is with investors.

Finally, a major political development over the course of the last few years, as more and more Americans are part of the investing world, is the "Investment Gap" that has widened and become significant over time. As one can see from the above figures, the "Investment Gap" now is staggering 31 points (Republican generic ballot advantage of 13 plus the Democrat advantage with non-investors of 18). In January this "Investment Gap" was 10 points. In the past, when the now famous "Gender Gap" was highlighted as significant it was 15 to 20 points.

Today, Democrats are having difficulty at the polls to a large degree because of their inability to garner a competitive number of votes among this rather dominant group of voters who invest. A key reason they don’t have strong support is the party’s lack of a clearly defined economic agenda as a companion to their attacks. Further complicating things for Democrats is the fact that this investing group of voters is more moderate than non-investors, contains a larger share of union households, is split evenly between men and women, and nearly two-thirds of the women in this group work outside the home.
And because investors represent two of every three voters and will continue to grow over time, this puts the Democratic Party in a very difficult spot.

==>Justice Louis Brandeis