Finish the Job

In the past several elections, National Rifle Association members have become the most united, most freedom-loving, most effective vote-producing machine in history. With critical control of the Senate up for grabs this November, it`s time to Vote Freedom First again . . .

Election Day 2002 is likely to break records and make history in the annals of congressional elections.

Never before has so much hinged on such a small number of swing voters in a handful of small and medium-sized states. Never before have so few voters had the power to determine national policy for so many.

And despite politicians` claims to the contrary, possibly never before have gun owners had such a decisive role to play in the preservation of their freedoms as they will on Nov. 5.

Neutralizing Gun Owners

Right now the national media, anti-gun politicians and the gun-ban lobby are waging a concerted effort to convince voters that in this year`s elections, the gun issue is a non-ssue.

For them, the memory of how Al Gore`s anti-gun positions cost him electoral victories in Arkansas, West Virginia, his home state of Tennessee, and eventually the White House--still stings.

This year, with the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives so closely divided--and with many key races occurring in pro-gun states-- anti-gun politicians are desperately trying to defuse the pro-gun vote by fooling gun owners into thinking our rights are secure.

They want you to believe that there is no threat to the Second Amendment. They want to convince gun owners that there is no enemy to rally against and defeat. In short, they want to lullaby gun owners who voted freedom first in 2000 into sitting out these elections--or even voting another issue first--so they can continue their activities with impunity.

Not unlike the proverbial wolf in sheep`s clothing, politicians who`ve built their careers waging war on the right to keep and bear arms now insist--even with a straight face--that they support the Second Amendment, that gun bans are no longer part of their agenda and that they deserve gun owners` votes.

But saying that doesn`t make it true.

Voting Records Contradict Political Rhetoric

Last fall, in his successful bid to become governor of Virginia, Mark Warner actively appealed to gun owners` groups and sportsmen. Breaking with the Democratic leadership`s almost institutionalized embrace of gun control as a campaign gimmick, Warner denied any anti-gun agenda and embraced pro-gun positions. It worked, and Warner won.

Now anti-gun politicians from both parties are adopting Warner`s stay-away-from-the-gun-control-issue strategy as far as campaigning is concerned. But whereas Warner had never held elective office before--and so voters had no record to depend on--many of the politicians now donning hunter-orange and posing with awkwardly-held shotguns are actually just cleverly camouflaged gun-ban extremists.

So what should gun owners believe? Campaign promises or Capitol Hill proposals? Press conference soundbites or backroom betrayals? Campaign rhetoric or the congressional record?

One fact is clear: No gun owner can believe both. Because in many of these key races, the chasm between word and deed is utterly unbridgeable. Many of the candidates running from the gun issue during campaign season have been quick to vote for any restriction on Second Amendment rights on the House or Senate floor--they`ve just stopped bragging about it so they can try to fool their constituents.

Make no mistake: Too much is at stake this fall to accept rhetoric over real votes. Right now the U.S. Senate is nearly divided down the middle for gun owners, with an unfriendly leadership controlling legislation. This is a very precarious position for freedom. If anti-gun forces increase their power in the U.S. Senate in this election by even a single vote, American gun owners could be forced to bear the consequences for generations to come.

While every race in every state holds a stake in our future freedom and deserves vigorous attention from liberty`s defenders, several races will be particularly important this fall.

South Dakota: The New National Divide?

One of the closest and most hotly contested U.S. Senate matchups this year is in South Dakota between Democrat Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune. It`s a battle that some see as a rematch between the forces aligned behind George W. Bush and Al Gore two years ago--with liberal, urban, anti-gun interests on one side, and rural, traditional, pro-freedom South Dakota values on the other.

While the race is expected to be a close one, the candidates couldn`t be much more different--especially on the topic of private ownership of firearms.

Tim Johnson has cast dozens of anti-gun votes in the House and Senate over the past decade. He voted to prohibit hunting on federal lands in the Mojave Desert and in Virginia. He voted for waiting periods for firearm buyers, even in states where the National Instant Check System could clear or reject purchasers immediately. He also voted to gut the Defense Department`s Civilian Marksmanship Program, a program enjoyed by thousands of law-abiding sportsmen. He`s voted to shut down gun shows and register lawful gun owners.

From a broader perspective, in recent years Johnson`s anti-freedom stances--from supporting gun bans, to opposing John Ashcroft as attorney general--could just be a disturbing trend. A more real explanation: He is more interested in the Washington, D.C., establishment than South Dakota values.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 82 percent of Johnson`s itemized individual contributions come from out-of-state donors. In fact, as of this spring, he ranked third on a list of Senate candidates receiving the greatest proportion of their money from out-of-state contributors. In contrast, John Thune receives most of his contributions from within South Dakota, and his record is one of integrity and fiscal responsibility in action. Thune also votes for freedom every time guns are in the legislative spotlight.

"This is one of the most important races in the country for gun owners this year," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox. "South Dakota deserves at least one pro-gun vote in the U.S. Senate. John Thune has been a loyal and consistent defender of the rights of law-abiding gun owners and his election to the U.S. Senate is vital to our fight for freedom."

Missouri: Experience and Talent

Another critical U.S. Senate race for gun owners will be in Missouri, between Jim Talent and Jean Carnahan. And again, the differences between the candidates are clear and important, especially concerning the right to keep and bear arms.

Jean Carnahan never held elective office before being appointed a U.S Senator after her husband`s tragic death during the 2000 campaign. Jim Talent, on the other hand, brings a wealth of experience to the table. After serving eight years in the Missouri legislature, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served another eight years.

Talent`s experience, expertise and proven ability to get things done in Congress are a big plus in the "Show Me" state. With the nation at war, the eight-year veteran of the House Armed Services Committee offers invaluable intelligence on issues of national security while always protecting our personal freedoms.

And most important of all for those of us who value the Bill of Rights, Talent stands up for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Throughout his time in Congress, he was a reliable and effective leader in protecting lawful Missourians` and Americans` firearm freedoms and hunting heritage.

Carnahan, on the other hand, is firmly entrenched in the anti-gun camp, and has voiced her support of the Clinton-era gun control schemes.

More recently, when Common Cause declared that "a vote for Campaign Finance Reform is a vote for gun control," Jean Carnahan was at the front of the line voting against your free speech. Towing the line for the Ted Kennedys and Chuck Schumers has provided her with lots of Washington, D.C., money.

Talent raises the vast majority of his money in Missouri--86 percent of individual donations, according to the Political MoneyLine Web site. Conversely, Carnahan relies on outside, national groups like Emily`s List. According to Gannett News Service, more than half of her individual donations were from outside of her home state of Missouri.

As for Carnahan`s donor base, it seems to be populated more by Washington fat cats and gun control groups than Missouri farmers or families. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported last spring, she had collected more money from lobbyists, legal groups and attorneys than any other incumbent in the Senate.

Much in the same way as Tim Johnson in South Dakota, Carnahan is advancing an agenda that reflects Washington, D.C., special interests rather than Missouri values. She, too, opposed the confirmation of Attorney General John Ashcroft, surprising many observers who expected her to put aside politics in favor of principle and confirm her fellow Missourian.

"Missouri gun owners deserve reliable representation for their freedoms and their families in the Senate and couldn`t ask for a better candidate than Jim Talent," NRA-ILA`s Cox said. "As he`s proven time and again he has the experience, the understanding and the ability to fight for our freedoms and win."

Philadelphia Freedom?

Mike Fisher squares off against former Philly Mayor Ed Rendell in a tense race for the Pennsylvania governor`s seat.

For Pennsylvanians who value their freedoms, the 2002 election for governor of the Keystone State couldn`t be more important.

The matchup, between former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell and Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher, pits an architect of the Clinton-Gore gun-ban platform against a strong advocate of the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Pennsylvania.

And the consequences of a gun-owner defeat in Pennsylvania could have far-reaching consequences for the entire nation.

In 1997, as mayor of Philadelphia, it was Ed Rendell who engineered the fraud of suing the firearms industry, and your freedoms, out of existence. By pushing the idea of these baseless lawsuits in public and in the media, Rendell in effect declared war on the Constitution. He called on other cities to file lawsuits, and said he hoped to recruit as many as 50 or 100 cities to join in the campaign.

Soon enough, dozens of cities, counties and states across America filed lawsuits against a lawful firearms industry. Gun makers laid off employees and had their insurance coverage dropped. Several went bankrupt. And in the very city where the Second Amendment was drafted, Rendell sought to drive it into insolvency.

As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Rendell led the political machine that gave us the Gore-Lieberman gun-control platform. And today, as a candidate for Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell wants to make his big-city gun bans the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--though he`d rather keep that a secret from gun owners.

Anyone who looks at his record rather than his rhetoric, though, will see that Rendell is one of the most anti-gun candidates for governor in Pennsylvania history. In his campaign for governor, Rendell is getting manpower and massive support from the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun-ban organizations. If Rendell wins, Pennsylvania could become their staging ground for gun bans on a national level.

Mike Fisher:

Defending Freedom, Defeating Violent Crime

Rendell`s opponent in the governor`s race is Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher, a leader who has fought long and hard, and won many victories, on behalf of Pennsylvania gun owners and hunters. For many years, he led the fight in the state Senate in Harrisburg to protect the right to keep and bear arms from big-city political operators like Rendell.

To reduce crime without diminishing the rights of lawful gun owners, Fisher led the fight, as Pennsylvania`s attorney general, to impose tough mandatory sentences on armed, violent criminals. He helped pass Pennsylvania`s "three strikes and you`re out" law. In southeastern Pennsylvania, he organized "Operation Cease Fire," a policy of strictly enforcing the laws against armed violent crime.

As a result of Mike Fisher`s efforts on their behalf, Pennsylvanians are far safer and far freer. Indeed, for his leadership, Fisher was awarded the NRA CrimeStrike Defender of Justice award and has been "A" rated by the NRA for nearly 20 years.

Unfortunately, according to ILA`s Chris Cox, far too few Pennsylvanians realize what a threat Rendell could pose to their freedoms--and Rendell isn`t likely to bring it up.

"The key to this race and many others around the country will be gun owner turnout and education," Cox said. "No matter how many gun owners and freedom-loving people there might be in a particular state, they can`t defend those freedoms unless they register and go to the polls and vote."

POSTED: Thursday, September 26, 2002