[charlesb_la]

Jan 18, 2:38 PM EST


Gonzales Backs Assault Weapons Ban


By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.


Gonzales also said he wants Congress to get rid of a requirement that would eliminate part of the Patriot Act this year, despite complaints that it is too intrusive.


"I believe the USA PATRIOT Act has greatly improved our nation's ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in written answers to questions left over from his confirmation hearing.


Gonzales, who served as President Bush's lawyer during his first term, is expected to be confirmed when the Senate returns after Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20. He would be the nation's first Hispanic attorney general and replace John Ashcroft.

Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., pressed Gonzales for written answers to several of their questions during his daylong confirmation hearing. Those answers were delivered on Tuesday to the committee, which planned a Wednesday meeting to consider nominations.


Congress let the 10-year-old assault weapons ban expire in September. The measure outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, banned certain features on firearms such as bayonet mounts, and limited ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.


Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.
"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

Antigun groups criticized Bush during the presidential campaign for failing to press for an extension of the ban.


Gonzales also said he supports the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers.


More than a dozen provisions of the law are set to expire by late October 2005 unless renewed by Congress. These include authority for judges to issue search warrants that apply nationwide, authority for FBI and criminal investigators to share information about terrorism cases, and the FBI's power to obtain records in terrorism-related cases from businesses and other entities, including libraries.


"I believe the sunsets that apply to several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act should be repealed," Gonzales said.


Opponents have called the law intrusive and contend that letting the FBI get library records undermines civil liberties and threatens to let the government snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.


Gonzales says people have misunderstood what parts of the Patriot Act does. "I am unaware of abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act," he said. "For this reason, I welcome an honest and real debate."


Gonzales said he is willing to consider tempering that part of the law.


The statute says business and library records must be "sought for" a terrorism investigation. Opponents have claimed that means the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court - the secret court that approves surveillance and wiretaps for espionage and terrorism cases - had no choice about whether to grant the subpoena.


"I would be happy for the statute to be amended to state the investigators may ask the FISA court for an order requesting the production of documents 'relevant to' an ongoing foreign intelligence investigation," Gonzales said.

[R.H. Lee]

"The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."
A little "Mini-Me" :rolleyes: Great. Well, what else could we expect. :( I nickname him "Senor Wences". :p

[publius]

If he agrees with the boss on the PA and on the AWB, I wonder if he also agrees with the boss' decision to sign the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection Act?

Good point at the end there. "Sought for" is not the same as "relevant to."

[Standing Wolf]

The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue.

Trusting R.I.N.O.s is like believing you've got only a mild, temporary case of A.I.D.S.

Creeps like Gonzales make me glad I voted Libertarian this past November.

[GoRon]

If the AWB or some version thereof gets signed into law in the next 4 yrs I will never vote for the GOP for any office ever again.

They have recieved my vote faithfully since the first Clinton term. It is now time to see some results.

[R.H. Lee]

They have recieved my vote faithfully since the first Clinton term. It is now time to see some results.
You might have a long wait. Republicans have received my vote faithfully since the first Nixon term. They got my last vote, ever, in November. I'm re-registering Independent.

[mattf7184]

Let the GOP know what you think:

http://www.gop.com/ContactUs/Default.aspx

[longeyes]

Abandon all hope ye who stick with the two major Parties. It becomes clearer by the day that they are impediments to the America envisioned by the Founders and believed in, still, by more than a few of us.

[longeyes]

Gonzalez has been holding W.'s dynastic cloak for a long time now. Loyalty to the king counts.

[publius]

The measure outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, banned certain features on firearms such as bayonet mounts, and limited ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.


Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.
"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

I guess I'm anti-cop. :rolleyes:

I also hate cheeruns and beat puppies.

[CentralTexas]

with the recent decision by the DOJ about owning guns being an individual right.
We need a party where the Second Amendment is a party plank...
May I direct you folks to the Libertarian party website? ;)
www.lp.org

[River Wraith]

They don't have the votes, which makes it a non-issue for now. However, the Republican party is coming dangerously close to losing my vote, for whatever that's worth. :fire:

[wdlsguy]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Gun%20Control

[macd]

I've said all along that Bush didnt press the AWB as a political move to get re-elected, when in fact he supported the ban. Regardless what many think but Bush is a scumbag. Period. Dont give me this crap Republicans or Democrats are looking out for you. If you think that, I've got some land for sale on Mars you might be interested in. Politicians are all scum, both partys included. Dont kid yourself. Its gonna be a bumpy four years. :fire:

IMHO, when you lie about going to war you should fry. No questions asked.

(Art's Grammaw stopped by...)

[Zip06]

This cannot be good. Not voting Republican next time is useless. I mean vote how...like demo. Get real.

No we need to get united in a block and put the mass of our weight behind a candidate. GW is going to sell us out for sure; he is not going to do anything about illegal immigration and he is going to change the social security rules.

Next President probably will not be a Republican if he goes down this road.

[deej]

This cannot be good. Not voting Republican next time is useless. I mean vote how...like demo. Get real.



Time for the obligatory Simpsons reference:

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
-- "Treehouse of Horror VII"

[CaesarI]

Based on the headline of this thread you'd think it was the NYT. Just 1 little word would make it all better: "Gonzales *says* he supports the AWB"

Big difference between sayin' and doin.

I think many of you are too quick to cry wolf on this one. Most of this is because so many people honestly believe the lie that Socialists love to tell: "Bush is an idiot" He's so stupid, he got elected to office twice.

Let's revisit the AWB from Bush' perspective acting under 2 assumptions:
1. Bush is politically savvy.
2. Bush opposes the AWB.

- The Dems don't have the votes to push it through the House.
- Saying you support the ban defuses *most* of the anti-gun criticism, which could cost Bush the White House. This will not satisfy the die-hard anti-gun folks, who will correctly identify my actions as what they are, but it will satisfy the "I'm anti-gun and don't know a darn thing about either side." type, who is very prevalent in the American electorate.
- Most gun owners, and NRA members, don't give a lick about the AWB. There are perhaps 500,000 to a million *hard* 2A supporters who do (much more than the rabidly anti-gun folks), who would be very angry if the bill passed, but might be smart enough to allow me to *say* one thing ("I support the Ban") and *do* another ("Don't you *dare* let that bill hit my desk!").

Politically savvy action: say you support the ban, but in private channels, make sure it dies. Politically ballsy action: promise you'll sign the ban *if* it hits your desk, and make darn sure it never does.

I swear, it's like no one on this thread has read Machiavelli before. The Dems have been sayin' one thing and doin' another for decades to great effect, and to the benefit of the Democratic party. A Republican tries to do the same thing to get elected, and you guys can't figure out when he's lying to *help* you.

So his AG is doin' the same spiel, big fat hairy deal.

-Morgan

[geekWithA.45]

Yeah, my take on it is that it's a transient blip, just politics, consistency with W's carefully crafted plausible deniability, more or less as CeasarI lays it out.

SomeSenator: Do you agree with your boss on the AWB?
Gonzales: Yeah. Insert anecdote for color about his brother
SomeSenator: Next question....

I'm not going to hit the panic button on it, but I will note it for future reference, to see if it becomes part of a larger anti 2A pattern.

As gunnies, we need to be a lot more politically savvy if we're going to be effective. Reflexively chanting about how the game's rigged, the DemoCans (or was it Republicrats?) are the one boot on your neck party, and the only hope for salvation for America is the {pick your favorite 3rd party, it literally doesn't matter} isn't gonna get any of us very far.

There is a time to wait and see, and I'd say that this is one of them.


Let's face it, your confirmation hearing, when you're vulnerable, is NOT the time to be making grand stands in the face of the opposition.

Here's a real example of that from my own private life:

When we were in Russia adopting the kids, the authorities took from us certain critical official pieces of paper that would be eventually be important later to the kid's legal status, the sort of papers you don't let out of your sight. (IIRC, I'm 85% certain it was our official and personal copies of the Adoption Decree from the Russian courts, in addition to the spares that were intended to be filed in Moscow) Due to cultural and language differences, they were unable to clearly explain their purpose for retaining the papers.

This was scary, straight out of the cold war ????.

Nonetheless, our analysis indicated that the absence of the papers would not prevent us from returning home with our kids, as we had already obtained their entry visas, and so we wisely let it slide, knowing that if we had to fight over it, we would fight from a position of strength, on American soil, with our children at home and registered as US Citizens, rather than go off half cocked in a strange land with no support.

The papers were returned a few nail bitten days later, an outcome that would have been complicated had we paniced and called out the Embassy Marines.

You don't fight from a vulnerable position when you've got a choice.

[g56]

#1 It's a confirmation hearing, he's playing up to the liberals.

#2 Saying and doing are 2 entirely different things.

#3 GWB has said for a long time he would sign an AWB if it was presented to him, I believe he is counting on the Congress to make sure one never gets to his desk!

[tyme]

There's a significant risk that Congress could pass a weaker form of AWB, or something else entirely like a ban on any pistols that have factory ammo that goes through some IIIa vest model.

They (both Bush and Gonzales) had better know what they're doing.

Let's face it. Republicans have compromised in the past. They're not going to get the benefit of the doubt from me until they go a while defending the RKBA against all attempts to further weaken it. When they have a good record, I'll be more inclined to believe that they're being Machiavellian rather than traitorous.

[rick_reno]

I'm waiting for this administration to tell gun owners to bend over - I'm convinced it's coming sometime in the next four years. But, I'll continue to support President Bush because lots of folks here told me he was the only hope we had before the last election. ;)
I voted Libertarian - they didn't win, but I didn't have to carry an air sickness bag into the booth with me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, both he and Bush could be lying about this, as part of some subtle plan to suck up to people who'd never vote Republican anyway. But the simplest explaination by far is that they're saying it because it's true: They really DO want the ban reenacted. It's not like it's freakishly unlikely for a Republican to be anti-gun, and like father, like son...

Nothing has come along to change my original assessment of Bush: He's a moderate anti-gunner who's willing to restrain his impulses to the extent that he sees as politically necessary. He saw it as VERY necessary in Texas, less so on a national stage, and now he's not going to have to face the voters (directly) again. Expect him to start pushing some of those gun control proposals he ran on, like raising the national age to own a handgun to 21, and cracking down on private party sales of guns.

And expect him to go out with a bang when it comes to Executive Orders.

[publius]

Big difference between sayin' and doin.

True enough. However, support from the office of the President and the AG does tend to lend a patina of respectability to the mean looking weapons ban. It's not a popular ban. How many votes could he possibly get by lying and saying he supports it?

Based on actions, we have to conclude that W supports the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. I still wonder if his AG nominee does as well?

[Luckyorwhat]

CaesarI: "Politically savvy action: say you support the ban, but in private channels, make sure it dies. Politically ballsy action: promise you'll sign the ban *if* it hits your desk, and make darn sure it never does."

That's not how things work. Real picture - think 'Sopranos' more than 'West Wing'. Problem is that they don't swear enough on the Sopranos.

Half of the campaign against Kerry was that he was two-faced. This means you can't suddenly do the same thing, or it may look bad.

All evidence to date shows that the MO of W is to say something, as a trial balloon, modify the idea based on feedback from the trial balloon, and push it more and more. until it is in the top 5 new stories every day, day after day. Tax cuts, agency reform, military action, bing bing bing.

There were people, (even democratic senators) who figured GWB was bluffing about attacking Iraq, they voted the authority to attack them because they [say] they thought he would use it as a bluff. They thought it was just skillful Machiavellian maneuver...

Rick_Reno: What exactly does GWB have to lose by pushing some legislation that is slightly unpopular, and could easily be explained as necessary ("A sleeper cell has access to assault weapons to carry out Ter. attacks...")?

All: The third-party route is a dead-end. If it should some-how get elected (as in Britain, Labour), then it will take 2-3 years before you can't tell the difference between it and the one it replaced (Blair simply implemented Thatchers proposed policies, and then some).

What is required in electoral reform, as Mexico did. Some countries use the riding system, "first past the post", where the canidate wins the riding if they have more votes than any other candidate. Other places use a proportional list, where each party submits a list of candidates and if they receive 17% of the popular vote they put the top 17% of the people on thier list into government. The former is great for forming governments to get things done, but isn't fair. The latter is fair, but gets nothing done. Mexico uses the both put together, they just double the number of representatives - you have the riding system, and then you add your %pop. vote to that.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Bush's feet need to be held to the fire on this before he goes "all wobbly" on 2nd Amendment issues. The NRA needs to remind him of their endorsement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and what's he care about that endorsement? What can the NRA do to him? He got the stupid endorsement despite the fact that he was publicly in favor of renewing the AWB; The NRA doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining if he pursues it now. He'll just be doing what he promised when they endorsed him.

You remember his dad? HE got elected with NRA support, too, and then screwed us over big time. Sure, he went down to defeat in the next election... It's quite possible that the only thing Bush learned from that was, "Wait until the second term to screw over your base."

The only thing we've got going for us is that he has to work with Congress, and THEY have to worry about the next election.

[GEM]

What a surprise! Bush is not a proactive gun president and is an elitist mild anti. The DOJ documents will mean nothing as far as Bush doing anything for the RKBA in a significant fashion.

Let's all remember, he won because Kerry was a loser. It wasn't his great job performance. Now he is having a grand party when guys are dying. Not my cup of tea.

The ruling elites of the left and right do not trust the common person with firearms. Each wants to rule but with a different set of priorities. They want no power to reside in the every day person.

[Bainx]

Big difference between sayin' and doin.

It walks like a duck
It talks like a duck
It looks like a duck

At the first mention of this guy's name, the people on talk radio started saying the man is a gun grabber.

Now, it is confirmed.

[Swamprabbit]

I think what many of you forget is that should the AWB be put to a popular vote, we pro 2A types would lose by a huge landslide. Just look at all the polls that has been done on it. A national leader could easily claim that the majority would be on his/her side to sign an AWB into law. The political reality here is that in a climate of close elections, no President is going to do anything, without a clear reason, that would honk any number of voters. Both parties now know that a vote for gun control is a guaranteed loss of a certain number of us but won't necessarily gain them any favors from those that do support the bans. In this environment, politicians will try to play to both sides by "saying" they support a ban that, in reality, won't make it out of congress.

I'm not taking up for this guy but I think he was just trying to keep the Democrats from making an issue on this one.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I agree that, were it put to a popular vote, it would probably pass, though I'm not sure of the "massive margin"; Gun related ballot propositions have a way of confounding polsters' expectations. The reason we tend to win isn't that we're the majority, but rather that we're the majority of people who care enough about this issue to base their votes on it. And when people START to care, they tend to learn something about the subject, and end up on our side.

But the fact is, that that very wide but shallow support for gun control is in large measure due to our allies in Washington not being willing to publicly say anything bad about gun control. Your average sheeple adopts the position they think is popular, and when do they ever hear anyone in a position of authority knock gun control? Never. Plenty of politicians are willing to praise it, though. So it must be a good thing, right?

So Bush is hurting us by this, even if it's just some stupid PR game. Which I don't believe it is. In every case where I've seen it proven that Bush was lying about his real position, he's proven to be more of a left-winger than he was admitting. And I think that's probably the case here, too.

[Bruce H]

Somebody expecting a political attorney to have principles? This attorney wants confirmed. He has no principles other than the prize of the AG job. I still think he should join Klerik. I know finding qualified attorneys will be a tuff prospect but we do have so many of them.

[Kim]

Now I do not think Gonzolas is as pro-2nd as Ashcroft. And I don't trust him but I trust very few. And I believe Ashcroft was asked at his confirmation hearing by Kennedy or Schumer(Can't remember) the same question and he said he supported the AWB also. Do I believe Ashcroft personally supported it. No absolutely not.

[Silver Bullet]

What President has been more pro-RKBA than Bush in the last 80 years ?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151933

[George S.]

Gonzales may have to maintain some level of Bush administration political-correctness in order to get confirmed. Condelezza Rice had to go through some tough questions and from what I have read, she is pro-gun. But the Secy of State is not in quite the same position as the Attorney General.

If some sort of AWB legislation is passed and even signed by the President, the AG has to support it and take any legal action in its defense at the Federal level.

In any event, the AWB died because there were not enough votes to extend that law nor were there enough votes to pass legislation that Feintwit indtrouduced in the Senate after she tried an and run around the rules. Even the House didn't want any part of a new AWB bill.

My take is that if you read what Bush said about "if he gets a bill, he will sign it, that doesn't necessarily mean that he will actively push Congress to pass a bill so he can sign it. For now, there are probably too many things on Bush's agenda to worry about a new AWB bill passing and being signed into law.

That does not mean that there won't be any bills introuduced (You can bet that Feintwit and her ilk are drawing up a number of variants of an AWB) but chances may be slim for passage early on in this session. Iraq, the economy, terrorism and other issues will take up the majority of time.

What really bothers me is the possibility of having some sort of AWB being tacked on as a rider to some other real important piece of legislation. This type of crap is what needs to be stopped. Politicans will trade their votes for anything that helps their cause or pet project. They buy each others votes just to further their polical cause and don't really give a damn about what it does to the citizenry.

[FeebMaster]

What President has been more pro-RKBA than Bush in the last 80 years ?

That's not really saying much.

[Sam Adams]

I am utterly disgusted. The Republicans are snorting cocaine if they think that coming out in favor of the AWB wins them any net votes. First, mouthing the words won't be believed by anyone. Just the act of stabbing a loyal constituency in the back would give any thinking person a good reason to say "I don't want any part of these people." Second, even if the words are to be believed, those who oppose the Republicans because of the gun issue probably have at least a dozen other issues that make them vote Democrat anyway. Thus, the number of votes that can reasonably be expected to be won by BS statements like this is negligible. On the flip side, many gun owners have already jumped ship on the Republicans because of this issue (just read this thread and others like it to see this in action), and a renewal at a time when the Party controls the Executive and Legislative branches would drive away at least hundreds of thousands of others. I simply cannot understand why the Republicans think that this is a winning policy position. Heck, gun control isn't even on the radar screen for 95% of the population - why don't they spend their political capital on terrorism, immigration, foreign policy, taxes or tort reform, where the payoffs are potentially far greater?

Here is the text of a letter that I sent to the national and Texas parties:

I am a lifelong Republican, and I am writing to tell you how disgusted I am with some of the testimony of Alberto Gonzales. He indicated that he is in favor of the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban that thankfully expired in September of 2004. I am adamently opposed to this and any other law or bill that would infringe upon the right of every American to keep and bear arms.

The Republican Party needs to understand that gun owners are a rock-solid base of support. Those who are in favor of gun control will NEVER vote Republican - because even if the Republican Party establishes itself as the party of gun control (hardly likely), those people dislike Republican positions on so many other issues that the effort is utterly futile. However, it is worse than that - because such efforts are viewed as a betrayal of a series of promises and a betrayal of long-standing principles by those of us opposed to gun control. I cannot tell you how many people I have come across over the years who have stated that they will never vote Republican again, specifically because of this issue - but the number is in the dozens (and I am only one person). These people either don't vote or vote Libertarian or some other 3rd party with no chance of winning - but those are votes that SHOULD be Republican.

Understand this: betraying a core constituency (any one, not just those who are pro-gun) in an attempt to "expand the tent" doesn't win new voters (or if it does, so few as to not be nearly worth the effort), while upsetting those in the core constituency. They DO have somewhere else to go on Election Day - shopping, hunting, work or their living room couch. Be smart, and let President Bush and the other party leaders know that failing to stick by a core constituency only makes them more like John Kerry - i.e. their words and promises become harder to believe. This can only be counterproductive.

It was bad enough that the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban passed with only meek opposition by a few Republicans. Now that the Presidency and the entire Congress is Republican-controlled, if ANY portion of the Assault Weapons Ban is re-enacted I WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN.

[bg]

He's the enemy clear and through. Get a rope !

[Sam Adams]

Politically savvy action: say you support the ban, but in private channels, make sure it dies. Politically ballsy action: promise you'll sign the ban *if* it hits your desk, and make darn sure it never does.

Yes, it is ballsy. But just because something is ballsy doesn't mean it'll work. The antis will never vote for the Republicans anyway - if it isn't guns, those wackjobs will do it on the environment, Iraq, defense/foreign policy, Social Security, abortion, you name it. OTOH, many otherwise reliably Republican voters will get torqued off enough by the ever-growing list of statements like this to just say "Aw, eff it, I'm staying home because none of those guys is for me anyway."

Gun control means little or nothing to at least 95% of the voters. But among those 5%, the most dedicated are on our side because we actually have something to lose - our material possessions and our liberties. Ticking off lots of those voters isn't very savvy - unless they all know about it and can keep a secret, which is as likely as ham sandwich being kosher.

[pogo2]

I read through this complete thread and tend to agree with Caesar1's Machiavellian interpretation of what is going on here. Bush and Gonzalez are politicians, and they are playing a little game here - saying one thing and doing another.

But there is an important point that nobody has mentioned. When Bush declared that he would sign an AWB extension, there was a footnote. The footnote was that he would sign exactly the same law, with no changes. The Democrats would never agree to this, as they know the original AWB was poorly written with respect to the definition of "assault weapons", and the gun makers deftly changed their product lines to step around the definitions.

Some guns were banned by name - so new guns of different name were introduced. Some guns were banned by certain cosmetic features like grenade launchers and bayonet lugs. So these were removed and the basic gun was still marketed. The banning proved to be ineffectual because it was full of loopholes. The Democrats know this, and would want to re-write the law to close the loopholes. But Bush has said all along that he would only sign exactly the same law - no changes. So we have an impasse, and nothing will happen.

It is all posturing and symbolism, with no substance. Gonzalez is just hewing to the party line to avoid drawing flak. He wants to get confirmed, not become a lightning rod.

[Wildalaska]

I swear, it's like no one on this thread has read Machiavelli before.

I just love a bright bulb in a dim room, thanks dude!

WildenoughwiththebreastbeatingandclothesrendingAlaska

[flatrock]

No political candidate or political appointee is going to perfectly match my views.

Actually, since my views on issues sometimes change as I learn more about those issues, I can be said to not even perfectly match my own views.

We're always going to have to pick among the choices we have.

Some people like to push the Libertarian Party.

Well, their Presidential candidate decided to get involved in the Ohio recount, and allowed the liberals to waste Millions of our tax dollars on a worthless recount that was obviously not going to change anything or show significant problems.

He's never going to get my vote, and I'm going to be very careful about voting for a LP party candidate because their vetting process obviously isn't working that great.

You can name other parties and their candidates, but I almost always find that I have a strong disagreement with them on some issues.

I voted for Bush. I voted for him because I felt he's trying to do a good job, and that he honestly seems to have the Country's best interests in mind.

He's not as pro-gun as I like. He has done a considerable number of small things to protect our 2nd Ammendment rights while he's been in office. His support of the absolutely useless and misleading AWB is the thing that I dislike most about him on the issue of guns.

He doesn't appear to support it strongly, but he should be opposing it strongly. He should be opposing it not just by not acting on it, but by speaking out about the flaws in the legislation and how it will do nothing to make us safer, instead it just makes us less free.

Gonzales is far from my ideal candidate for AG. Personally I think I like Ascroft better. I'm not cheering about his nomination, but I'm not worried that the days of Reno's level of incompetence and abuse are back.

If a third party candidate were in office I'd honestly be worried that they were appointing someone with good ideals, but without the proper skills to handle the job. That's one of my main concern about 3rd party candidates as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, *I've* read Machiavelli before, though not recently, and I don't recall anything that would suggest he'd approve of a Prince promising to attack his most loyal allies, in order to suck up to his most bitter enemies.

At least not within the hearing of said allies.

[Brett Bellmore]

"<i>Personally I think I like Ascroft better.</i>"

And THAT is why Ashcroft got to stick around until <i>after</i> the election. Ashcroft was the AG Bush picked to please his base, Gonzales the AG he picked to please himself.

[denfoote]

I harped on this all during the election.
I said that the Shrub really is anti gun!!
Now that the election is over, and he does not have to court your vote, the truth has come out!!

Bon apatite'!!!!

"The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."


So does his new stooge!!! :cuss:

[Waitone]

Politically savvy action: say you support the ban, but in private channels, make sure it dies. Politically ballsy action: promise you'll sign the ban *if* it hits your desk, and make darn sure it never does. Two points: First, that is precisely the same political calculus that bit him right square in the ***. Its called Campaign Finance Control.

Second, can someone tell me what the H**l is wrong with exhibiting leadership? What is wrong with stating what you believe and then fight for it?

[Silver Bullet]

Maybe we need to start work right now towards getting a candidate in 2008 who will represent us in the manner we'd like.

1) Identify potential rkba champions;
2) Determine the most qualified and willing to run for President from that group;
3) Brainstorm some ideas about how to get that candidate nominated; for instance, getting involved locally with the party that is going to support that candidate;
4) Settle on a course of action to achieve nomination;
5) Get as many folks on board as we can;
6) Get started as soon as possible;
7) Keep a discussion going on progress and what we can do to improve the process.

Let's not wait for the primaries and then choose from the candidates the parties propose. Let's make our own push to get good candidates.

These are just starter ideas; I'm sure there are members here who are much more politically astute who can improve on this.

[NRAninja]

On one hand I'm thinking maybe Gonzalez doesn't want to get filibustered. But on the other hand, if they let Ashcroft through, what does Gonzalez have to worry about? So why is he saying he supports the AWB? Hmmmmmmmmmm

[El Rojo]

Creeps like Gonzales make me glad I voted Libertarian this past November.And your Libertarian vote made a huge impact and statement. Just look what it did. It taught the Republicans not to take us for granted and to make sure to appoint pro-second amendment candidates.

This whole third party/hate Bush attitude is sorry. Either you wanted John Kerry to be President or you didn't. It is that simple. Your third party vote is a selfish act so you can claim innocence in this whole mess. Give me a break.

The AWB is dead. Be thankful and if you want something to really worry about, move to the PRK. Otherwise be greatful for the rights you can still practice and quit crying wolf.

[denfoote]

It's been common knowlege that the Shrub was anti gun ever since he ordered his stooge, Scott McClellan, to announce his support for the AWB!!

G'ahead, flame me.
I remember saying something about a Rose Garden cermony to sign the AWB reauthorization, with the Shrub flanked by Shumer, Brady, Kennedy, Boxer, Spector, Lugar, et.al.!!!

Well, Bush the Younger is just itch'in to do it!!

[El Rojo]

The sky is falling denfoote. Offer some proof of this or quit yer rabble rousing. And some appointee saying he supports an AWB signing is not proof.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

.

[Gifted]

This whole third party/hate Bush attitude is sorry. Either you wanted John Kerry to be President or you didn't. It is that simple. Your third party vote is a selfish act so you can claim innocence in this whole mess. Give me a break. I can claim innocence in the mess. It's people like you that keep third parties out of politics. :fire: :barf: People read crap like that, and don't vote for who best represents them. And since that's the majority, third parties never do anything. :banghead:

I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. I voted for Badnarik, and convinced a few others to too. Next election, more votes will be taken from the two big parties. Eventually they will have to reform, or face extinction. If I recall my history correctly, we've gone through two or three sets of parties. It's time for another.

[Brett Bellmore]

If memory serves, the last time we swapped parties, we didn't have all this "campaign reform" garbage regulating how people could campaign. Ballot access was a lot easier, too.

I joined the Libertarian party in the late '70s, before I was old enough to vote even, but I always understood there'd come a point where the LP would have grown big enough to be recognized by the major parties as a threat. And they'd turn on us, start passing laws to keep us down.

I figured that one of two things would happen: Either we'd grow like wildfire, and suplant one of the major parties in the space of a few years, (Here's a clue: The Republican party didn't replace the Whigs over a leisurely half century. They did it in six years.) or the major parties would get their defenses up, and we'd be doomed to permanent fringe status.

Welcome to scenario two. We didn't grow fast enough, they got their defenses in place, and the Libertarian Party is NEVER going to be more than a fringe player. Game over, we got clobbered. You either work within the existing parties, or wait for the revolution.

[Selfdfenz]

"This whole third party/hate Bush attitude is sorry. Either you wanted John Kerry to be President or you didn't. It is that simple. Your third party vote is a selfish act so you can claim innocence in this whole mess. Give me a break."

I'm not a strong supporter of 3rd parties. I am a critical thinker, however, and as such could not bring myself to cast a second vote for W. I still think he is a decent human being. And you are so d--- right, I sure do claim innocense in the the whole mess and rightly so. I will be happy to remind W supporters to be happy for the s----ing this country is about to receive and how it happened. Republicans need to drop the excuses and find us some better material to vote for.

Everyday W is proving he is not, and will not be, the lesser of two evils. Had Kerry been elected, the Republicans would have blocked much of the radical legislation Lurch supported. It looks like W will support laws on par with those Kerry might have supported and the Republicans in the House and Senate will not block them.

In the end we will be worse off in the next 4 years than we were in the last 4 years. Gonzales is just one example. It appears we will have an anti AG to match our anti President. How the heck is that so much better than Kerry and company would have been?

And please don't tell me W is pro. CHL in TX alone does not close that switch.
It was politically expedinet for W to do it and that's why he did it.
S

[Silver Bullet]

“Anti” ? What evidence ? I provided Mr. Roberts’ extensive list of proactive pro-RKBA initiatives for which Bush has been responsible. Actions, not words; I give more emphasis to what he is doing than what he is saying.

And I can’t imagine what you’re thinking to suggest that Bush will push through more anti-RKBA legislation than Kerry. The Republicans have the majority right now, but you can’t guarantee they will after the 2006 elections. And, congress seems too easily intimidated by the liberal media. If a President Kerry put up a glitzy “progressive” agenda that whipped up the public and was backed by the media with 24/7 groupthink, I think it’s entirely possible congress would be cowed into line.

[stevelyn]

Personally I think I like Ashcroft better.

I find it preferable to stick with the devil you know.

[Selfdfenz]

"I give more emphasis to what he is doing than what he is saying."

Silver Bullet

When Bush says he favors the AWB and the man he picks for AG says the same thing, you ignore it? Has there been a more anti piece of legislation in recent history?

Where I come from people are judged for saying what they mean, and meaning what they say. W is from the same part of the World.
He means it! It's not an election year tactic now.

There's been debate here on THR about a new piece of AWB legislation in W's 2nd term. In what way are Bush and his AG appointment any different than Kerry and his would-have-been appointment on the AWB? Please explain that to me.

The Gonzales appointment puts us a step closer to some new version of the AWB law, not more distant. To me that says anti in letters 10 feet tall.
I think it will happen. I hope I'm wrong.

S-

[Silver Bullet]

The AWB didn’t belong to Bush. Even if Bush signed a new AWB, I would be confident that Kerry would have done much worse. Getting back to deeds and words, look at Kerry’s hunting show versus Kerry’s voting record.

And, taking a harder look at item #1 on Mr. Roberts’ list: The UN will probably bring up the global gun control issue again in the next four years. Bush kicked sand in the faces of the European girly-men when it came up last time, and I have much more confidence in him telling the UN to go pound that same sand than I do in Mr. “The UN is God” Kerry.

[GEM]

I'm always amazed at the mental convolutions that gun folk and conservatives make to excuse Bush supporting the AWB.

I'm always amazed that gun folks and conservatives have no moral problem with their proposition that he is lying when he says he supports it and it saying this for venial political advantage.

I'm always amazed the gun folks and conservatives say that he is a pro-RKBA president when he never spends his own political capital on our issue but is willing to spend it on other things. Why not the RKBA as compared to a tax cut or the war?

There is one born every minute! :banghead:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What is with all the Chicken Little attitude in this thread? Have people here completely lost their minds or any past memory of history?

Here is Sen. Diane Feinstein, whom we all know and love, discussing John Ashcroft's 2001 confirmation hearings (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june01/ashcroft_1-18.html):

"And he (Ashcroft) made some commitments that were very big commitments -- that in his view Roe vs. Wade is settled; that he would not bring a case to overturn Roe; that he would carry out the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act, that he would not... that he would support the assault weapons legislation, which he had opposed, that he would support its reauthorization; that he would support closure of the gun show loophole and a number of other things."

Queried in writing by Senator Schumer (just like Gonzales was for this "news"), Ashcroft answers with the following (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/02-26-2001/vo17no05_ashcroft.htm):

"Queried by Schumer about Second Amendment issues, Ashcroft expressed support for the Brady law and the "assault weapons" ban. (He had previously promised Feinstein that he would support an effort to re-authorize the ban in 2004). He also announced that if the Congress were to pass a national licensing and registration act — which would almost certainly be an overture to firearms confiscation — he "would defend it in court and argue its constitutionality."

Here is the full transcript of Ashcroft's 2001 Senate confirmation hearing (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/011701ashcroft.htm) where he repeats everything you heard above (of course, since it is no longer being filtered by the media it has a slightly different context).

Anybody here remember what Ashcroft actually did as Attorney General once appointed? Legitimate NICS purchases are now purged from the system in 1-day instead of 180 days. The Department of Justice now holds the Second Amendment to be an individual right and commissioned a legal study supporting that view. All of this from the same man promising to renew the assault weapons ban and enforce licensing and registration. Crazy stuff eh?

So when the same scenario plays out in 2004 (with the only major difference being that this Attorney General's comments are actually less "anti-gun" than Ashcroft's), all of a sudden everyone here completely forgets all of this past history and assumes that the results will be 180 degress from 2000. Why is that?

Those of you who were unhappy about your choices in 2004 had better get to work. If you are a third party advocate, you have less than four years to get a viable, palatable candidate in charge of your party and position the party where it has some tiny hope of making an impact on our system of government.

If you voted major party; but didn't like the choices, you've got less work but still a lot to do. You need to identify prominent Republican/Democrat candidates you like, encourage them to higher office, and push them through the primary system while at the same time developing the next crop to replace this one.

[Silver Bullet]

Mr. Roberts, thank you for posting the list of this administration’s pro-RKBA accomplishments (in the Firing Line thread I referenced in post #33 of this thread). This is the third High Road thread that I’ve made reference to them !

I agree that it is important to start work now getting our preferred candidates nominated.

[Luckyorwhat]

Silver Bullet; "And I can’t imagine what you’re thinking to suggest that Bush will push through more anti-RKBA legislation than Kerry. The Republicans have the majority right now, but you can’t guarantee they will after the 2006 elections. And, congress seems too easily intimidated by the liberal media."

You make clear and concise arguments, and I thank you for that. I have to point out-

http://www.thehighroad.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1565

-that the term 'liberal media is a catch-phrase for 'not fox'. If we get past the skewed interpretation of the word 'liberal' (which I urge many to look up), we must be stopped by the fact that media is owned by large corporations responsible to their shareholders, like any other business. They are basically the same, there is no Pravda, don't fall for the marketing tactic (though it is by any standard a brilliant and successful tactic).


I must take an opportunity to second GEM's statement, and to offer my empathy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I'm familiar with the liberal notion that absentee owners have more control over the nature of the media, than the people who actually create the product. Which explains why CBS was running last minute hit pieces on Kerry, using documents forged by Pat Robertson. :barf:

[El Rojo]

I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. I voted for Badnarik, and convinced a few others to too. Next election, more votes will be taken from the two big parties. Eventually they will have to reform, or face extinction. If I recall my history correctly, we've gone through two or three sets of parties. It's time for another.Sorry to tell you, but your getting two more people to vote third party is hardly a sign of great change. Lets look at the real voting statistics.

2004 Election
George W. Bush Popular Votes 62,041,268 50.73% Electoral Votes 286 53.16%
John Kerry Popular Votes 59,028,548 48.27% Electoral Votes 251 46.65%
Ralph Nader Popular Votes 463,635 0.38% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%
Michael Badnarik Popular Votes 397,157 0.32% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%
Other (+) - - Popular Votes 365,170 0.30% Electoral Votes 1 0.19%

2000 Election
George W. Bush Popular Votes 50,460,110 47.87% Electoral Votes 271 50.37%
Albert Gore Jr. Popular Votes 51,003,926 48.38% Electoral Votes 266 49.44%
Ralph Nader Popular Votes 2,883,105 2.73% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%
Patrick Buchanan (Reform) Popular Votes 449,225 0.43% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%
Harry Browne (Libertarian) Popular Votes 384,516 0.36% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%
Other (+) - - Popular Votes 236,376 0.22% Electoral Votes 1 0.19%

1996 Election
William Clinton Popular Votes 47,400,125 49.23% Electoral Votes 379 70.45%
Robert Dole Popular Votes 39,198,755 40.72% Electoral Votes 159 29.55%
H. Ross Perot (Reform) Popular Votes 8,085,402 8.40% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%
Ralph Nader Popular Votes 685,297 0.71% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%
Harry Browne (Libertarian) Popular Votes 485,798 0.50% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%
Other (+) - - Popular Votes 420,024 0.44% Electoral Votes 0 0.00%

Source http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

Ok, so lets relook at your statement about getting the third party vote out. The actual number of third party voters has remained fairly stagnant for the last three years. More specifically lets look at the Libertarian Party. Their percentage of total votes has actually gone down over the last three years!

You are going to need to get a lot more than two of your friends to turn out for the Libertarian Party. In fact if you just want to disrupt the Republicans enough so they lose so they can learn their lesson, you will need about 3 million friends. If you want a chance of winning, you are going to need at least 60 million friends to show up.

So you are right, at the current growth rate of 13,000 voters every four years means in approximately 18461 years the Libertarians will have enough votes to counter the other major party. Of course this doesn't take into consideration population growth and Armageddon.

I wouldn't say it is voters like me who ruin the third parties chances. I have voted third party in the primaries. I don't mind trying to reform the party. However, I understand that many people will not vote third party when it really counts. As a result, I choose the lessor of two evils tactic as I realistically know the third party has no chance. If you want to make a statement and be able to say you didn't vote for them and nothing is your fault, go for it.

[denfoote]

"The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

The sky is falling denfoote. Offer some proof of this or quit yer rabble rousing. And some appointee saying he supports an AWB signing is not proof.
Yesterday 10:25 PM

How many people have to say the same thing before you believe it??

This Goof has said it.
Scott McClellan, the president's mouthpiece, has said it!!!
Maybe you would like 'ol Ari Fleisher to come back and say it too??

Ok, I'll go back to my wait and see attitude.
But, if you want to stop the invertible, you had better stop it at the source!! Because if it gets to the Shrub's desk, it's all over!!

But remember, a prophet is scorned in his own time!!!

[El Rojo]

But, if you want to stop the invertible, you had better stop it at the source!! Because if it gets to the Shrub's desk, it's all over!!I fully understand that. If it does make it to his desk and he signs it, you won't hear me complaining. I know what he said, I know where he stands on the issue. I also know that John Kerry critisized Bush for not making a stronger push for an extension or new AWB and that under the aggressive leadership of John Kerry, there was a greater chance of a new AWB getting pushed through.

Even though he has come out and said he would sign it and his cronies say the same thing, it still has to get to his desk. And has Bush been pusing Congress for them to get him a new AWB? No he has not. He has been very quiet about the whole thing. The AWB is dead for two more years. 2006 will be an important year for gun owners. We have to keep Congress if you want to keep your semi-auto rifles.

I say you and your because my guns are gone. I live in the PRK. Anything that happens on the Federal level will only catch up to what we already have. You don't have to explain to me the consequences of getting the wrong people in office.

[RealGun]

What was Gonzales expected to say? Why shouldn't it have been predictable? Under the circumstances, would it have been realistic to expect him to be very candid? Should the question indirectly force Bush into a revised public position? Should Gonzales be expected to have a truly independent position before even confirmed? I don't think so, as a matter of being realistic. Should the question be allowed to make a renewed AWB a big issue. I don't think so. Nothing has changed.

Reactions here are just a rehash of everything that has been said before about the AWB, including all the Bush bashing, hyping the LP, yadda, yadda, the sky is falling. Congress passes an AWB, not an Attorney General.

[Correia]

Just a quick addendum (I have not had time to read this whole thread).

I spoke with Jeff OTMG. He called the Houston PD, they have not had an officer shot in 2 years, and none has ever been killed with an "assault rifle". So much for the brother thing.

[Selfdfenz]

El Rojo,

I won't argue you calculations but the one point you glaring omitted relates to the fact both majors are pushing some of their marginal supporters out. The Libs don't have to work for every vote. Some will walk there on their own.

If all was well and good with the Dems and Reps there would be not be a LP or CP.
BTW, tiny though their total was, %'s were up for the CP. I have to think, given the CP platform, most of the increase came from the RP.

Be well and prosper,

S-

[El Rojo]

I won't argue you calculations but the one point you glaring omitted relates to the fact both majors are pushing some of their marginal supporters out.Glaring omitted? (or is that glaringly?) You had roughly 60 million people vote for each of the two major parties. You had about 1.2 million votes for all of the third parties combined, which is roughly 1%. Are you making the argument that that 1% is a significant enough number to include in my analysis? And that is if we consider all 1% of the electorate as new voters for the independent parties. When we look at the 2000 election and see that 3.9 million people voted for a third party compared to this election's 1.2 million, it proves my point and crushes yours. More of your friends might be voting third party, but more people total are not. In fact, only half as many people voted third party this time around than last time. So your claim of "some" marginal supporters being pushed out is technically correct, when we define "some" as a number between 100 and negative 2.7 million people. It appears at this time more people are going back to the two parties than people are leaving the two parties. So what is your point again? Either third parties are getting stronger and have a chance in hell or they don't. I would like to see someone tell me they have a chance as it appears from the last election that they don't.

When it comes down to it, there are way more people out there that will vote the lesser of two evils than vote principle. Until something really major happens, that isn't going to change. And continuing to argue that more people should vote third party because that would change things is definitely not something major. Probably that something major you are looking for would be major disappointment in a party or a seriously strong third party candidate. I am not going to hold my breath.

[Selfdfenz]

El Rojo,

First
Relax man. You caught my typo but missed "I won't argue your calculations".

Your numbers were well put forth both times but I'm not arguing about that part of you post. If your numbers would stay fixed for all time you'd have a winning argument but they will not. Such is the stuff of our political system. Are you saying the % splits are fixed for future elections? I don't think so and I hope you don't believe that. You did an excellent job of describing the numerical outcome of some recent elections and you have a good personal spin on that but you missed something important.

The fact that third party candidates do impact election outcomes can be seen in three elections I'm aware of in just my lifetime. The third party candidates I'm speaking of were Perot, Nader and Wallace. Each caused only a small deflection in the %s but each is credited with having changed the outcome of the election of the PoUS. Some will say they caused platform recalibration in the national party most impacted by their running in those elections. At some level I agree with that. Multi-party elections aren't our cup of tea in the US but they are in many European countries. What's to stop that from happening here? IIRC Wallace got some pretty meaningful %'s.

You can't ignore the historical facts and the impact third party candidates have had and could have in the future. There have been more than two political parties in the American landscape in the past just as there are now.

What would have happened if Ronald Reagan had been a third party candidate? (Tree limb extention tool deployed) IMO he would still have been elected, partly on his credentials and personality but more importantly on his message. He had the right message, at the right time and people listened.

We didn't have great choices this election. In his two campaigns Bush moved toward positions the Dems had traditionally staked out as private property. He won doing it. Both parties played assorted fear cards and the Republicans had a better hand. I get the impression you look at the numbers in these elections and see hard polarizations in the American voter that will carry forward in the future. I don't. I see more weak candidates from both of the major parties selling a lot of the same stuff with the American voter acting accordingly. I don't believe Bush has the mandate in his win he thinks he does. One thing for sure, he ain't no RR. Not sure what in the manner of his past and so far predicted stewardship of the oval office is an insurance policy in the next election for the Republicans. Hillary is already making what we might have considered a while back to be Republican-like noises on some of the issues. Took a page from W's play book on that.

As long as the differences in the messages and candidates offered by the Dems and Reps are so alike, it enhances the potential that third party candidates will enjoy some media and voter attention. And yes, down the road I think the right third party candidate with the right message could win the WH.

S-

[El Rojo]

Are you saying the % splits are fixed for future elections?You are correct, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that people are wrong when they claim that more people are voting third party and when people claim that more people are leaving the two parties for third parties. AT THIS TIME, the numbers do not show that. I am sure they didn't show that either prior to 1992. As I said before, in order for third parties to jump back like 92, someone is going to have to suck really bad in one of the parties or something super drastic on a grand social level is going to have to occur. The interesting thing is usually third parties grow because an incumbant running for another term screws up real bad. Knowing that, I wouldn't count on a strong third party option in 2008. Maybe a 3rd party spoilier, but then again, I think that is all third parties are destined to be.

And yes, down the road I think the right third party candidate with the right message could win the WH.Interesting theory. That would be a first. You are correct that so far the third party has mainly been reserved as a spoiler position. The interesting thing that I did ignore earlier because it didn't support my position was how Perot spoiled G.H.W Bush I and one could argue that that defeat helped reform the Republican Party and helped shape Gingrich's Contract with America and the resulting republican wins in the years after. However, Clinton did get one more term after the supposed catharsis and wouldn't that be nifty if the history repeated itself in the sense that Gore/Nadar was the democrats lesson of 2000 and now a democrat will take it in 2008.

Don't even bother talking about Hillary in 2008. It won't happen. She is a non-issue. Well at least she is a non-issue until after November 2006. She still needs to keep her Senate seat if she wants to be President (in my opinion). Plus the Republicans would counter with Condi Rice. A Republican, black, female presidential candidate. How crazy would that be.

I don't know. I would like to believe the democrats have melted down and they will never win again. How great would that be?

[hoji]

Originally Posted by Silver Bullet
What President has been more pro-RKBA than Bush in the last 80 years ?

Kennedy and Eisenhower.

[publius]

The Republicans have destroyed the Democrats by becoming them. One party rule sucks. It affects the balance of powers, because there is no way the Republican Congress would trust John Kerry and his AG with some of the powers they are willing to entrust to W and his AG.

Speaking of AG's, upon learning more about Gonzales, I'm frankly more disturbed by his actions on behalf of the racists with La Raza than I am by his rhetoric on the mean looking weapons ban.

[Luckyorwhat]

The Republican adoption of some democratic ideas is standard procedure in consolidation of power. You are looking at a +-15year cycle, based on other countries. Once a party can occupy the center of the political spectrum (which Reps do not yet) they are very hard to dislodge, the 2nd party (in this case Dems) must find new votes, and spends a few years just deciding from which end of the spectrum to reach, right or left. If they try both (which is the tempting gamble, risk it all to win big) they lose their base, and are critically weakened.

What happens in an electoral system based on FPP (all the electoral college votes go to the guy with the most votes in that state, not the majority, just the most) is that REGIONAL parties can spring up. It is abundantly clear why national 3rd parties lose, because 5% in every state means you lose in every state. A regional party rises to fulfill desires of 'neglected' states, and can win because they receive more votes than the 2 national parties (ex Reps 31%; Dems 29%; Regional 39%). You know all those states that never even see the candidates during the campaign, the 'flyover' states? They become disenfranchised, and a fresh new party rises to represent them - usually riding a tidal-wave of support (not 39% but 60%).

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Silver Bullet
What President has been more pro-RKBA than Bush in the last 80 years ?

Kennedy and Eisenhower.

Really? Which federal gun laws were repealed during their administrations? What new protections did we receive?

[RealGun]

the 2nd party (in this case Dems) must find new votes, and spends a few years just deciding from which end of the spectrum to reach, right or left. If they try both (which is the tempting gamble, risk it all to win big) they lose their base, and are critically weakened.

Without immigration control and efforts to make other minority children productive citizens who aren't receiving assistance, the Dems base will grow steadily, reinforcing a trend toward socialism. If via abortion rights, gay marriage, or keeping religion out of government, the Dems become characterized by the religious right as the work of the Devil, then it could get interesting. However, that will not be about the socialist core issues of the Dems. I think the GOP will, on its face, be quite moderate.

We'll see, but if they want to offer me Newt Gingrich, forget it. The guy's dangerously smug and a real dinosaur in my opinion.

[GEM]

I'm pretty sure Kennedy was an NRA member. I've seen a copy of a letter about this on the web.

Also, here's a quote from Hubert Humphrey -
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." --
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)"

The point is that most current democrats are bad on the RKBA. That doesn't mean that George W. Bush is good on the issue. Many of you can't get that through your heads. At best, Bush won't push for new laws. He will sign them if somehow they get to him. I want you to recall that he spent almost zero political capital on the manufacturer's protection bill. The bill was sunk because of the attempt to tie it to the AWB. That attempt was successful because:

1. Bush supported the AWB and was in a logical bind
2. He didn't go to the wall for the bill.

Now the 9th Circuit and Supreme Court are allowing such suits. Thanks, George.

So he's not a good gun president. That is a separate issue from whether the Democrats are worse. Electing him was better on the gun issue than electing a democrat but that still doesn't make him a good gun president. It is very simple unless you are blinded by some kind of ideological loyality and inability to criticize him.

[Silver Bullet]

Who is refusing to criticize him ? My only point, and it’s a small one, is that it is disingenuous to characterize him as an “anti” (one of the strongest THR epithets) when his record has been the most pro-RKBA of any president in our lifetimes.

I’m not saying he’s perfect; I’m not saying we can’t do better. I’m not saying we can let our guard down and not keep the screws applied to our congress critters. I am saying he is way better for us than Kerry.

[RealGun]

So he's not a good gun president.

Who signed the laws we hate? I don't believe there are any gun laws we like. Was there ever in recent history a "good gun president" other than one that didn't sign anything infamous, perhaps not offered anything to sign in regard to guns? 'Pretty much off their radar, I would say, with the exception of Clinton, leaving it up to Congress.

[GEM]

My point is made, he is just one of the lesser bad gun presidents.

A good gun president is one who would proactively move to pass progun legislation and void bad laws. Can't say that Bush is in that mode.

If he puts the same effort into those two activities - passing progun laws, getting rid of bad laws, that he puts into tax cuts - then that's a good gun president.

Not being super crappy but mildly crappy is not good.

What could he do?

1. Vigourously fight for the manufacturer's protection bill
2. Push for national CCW reciprocity
3. Push to get rid of the Post office ban
4. Make sure the armed pilots program is on track
5. Make a speech that the armed citizen is fundamental to the WOT, and thus CCW at schools is to be encouraged
6. Get rid of stupid NFA provision and the like

I'm sure I could think of more but I doubt he will do anything like this.

It is sad that we take a lack of negative action as being the best we can get.

I agree he is better than Kerry but one must admit that these kinds of threads, do sometimes get full of praise for him.

[RealGun]

I look to Congress to be proactive about guns, pro or con. If Bush's speech yesterday and the State of the Union speech upcoming are considered, it's clear that guns are not within the scope of current presidential concerns. I too would hold a President accountable for what he signs but would have to be sympathetic if no line item veto power is granted, forcing him to throw the baby out with the bath water just to please me. The onus is on Congress in my opinion. Bills have to be clean or they will make a mockery of the process.

I am not sure any of this ruminating matters, because I don't think we will see any gun legislation coming out of committee for a long time.

[Silver Bullet]

If you figure that the next time you see gun legislation being offered it will be when the Dems control congress and the White House, then it is significant that nothing is happening now. We need to make gains while the pro-RKBA forces are in control. Otherwise, we keep ratcheting backwards everytime the antis are in control.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a joke, speaking of Bush and "vetos" in the same breath. He got through his first term without vetoing anything, even things he said he'd veto, and I fully expect an equally pathetic performance in his second term.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I want you to recall that he spent almost zero political capital on the manufacturer's protection bill. The bill was sunk because of the attempt to tie it to the AWB.

So Bush = bad because he didn't denounce the AWB and Bush also = bad because he let the manufacturer's protection bill be sunk after the AWB renewal was attached to it? Do you see any contradiction in that statement?

Bush wrote a letter to Congress specifically asking that the AWB not be included with the manufacturer's protection bill. Exactly what should Bush have done beyond this measure to influence Congress? What specific deals should he have offered Democrats on this measure? Rather than offer us vague assertions such as "not spending enough political capital", outline the specific actions your ideal RKBA president would have taken faced with that same scenario.

[lostone1413]

GWB will NEVER push for any pro-gun bills!!! He is to busy worried about his Guest Worker crap. Election over now with both parties starts the great sell out of America!!

[GEM]

NO, reply to above from the Mod.

It was his support for the AWB that let that window of vulnerability occur. I wonder why you fail to see that. It was incredibly predictable. Also, GOP support was not there, IIRC. If he couldn't get behind the scenes and fight for it with his own people, he is a poor excuse as a politician. The letter came out at the last minute as a feeble attempt.

Make excuses - I prefer a person who loudly announces his stand for a basic freedom and fights for it.

[El Rojo]

Election over now with both parties starts the great sell out of America!!I find this "sell out" theory that people put forth as nothing more than hysterical rhetoric. I have still not received a good answer as why Dubya would suddenly "sell out" regarding the gun issue and push for more gun control. What this "sell out" crowd doesn't seem to understand is that there is an election every two years. Yes the President won't be up for election, but 435 House members and 33 to 34 Senators will be. The parties need these people and so they won't be "selling out" their constituents anytime soon. Not to mention both parties want the White House in 2008. This means the Republicans know that if they piss too many people off now, they can kiss their chances good bye in 2008.

There is no incentive whatsoever for the Republican Party to suddenly change their stance on firearms and join the Democrats in wholesale bans of firearms. The Republicans saw exactly what happened to Congress in 1994 after the first AWB. They will not make the same mistakes the Democrats did that year.

I guess my points though aren't as exciting and it keeps me from being able to whip up a good old fashion batch of hysterical fear. So what the hell, here goes...

BE READY FOR SELL OUT 2005!

[hoji]

You know,it truly amazes me the extent you so called "conservatives" will go to defend your lord and master President Bush. Every thing he does that wipes his butt with the Constitution,you defend him by saying"Well,he REALLY meant something else"
He is Pro abortion,pro assault weapon ban,pro open border,pro amnesty for all illegals that are already here, pro MASSIVE spending,etc.et al.
Wake up.

[lostone1413]

Anyone who can say he will sign the AWB if it gets to his desk you really think is pro-gun?? To me if he was pro-gun he would have had the ball to say if it gets to his desk he will veto it!

[FeebMaster]

If you figure that the next time you see gun legislation being offered it will be when the Dems control congress and the White House, then it is significant that nothing is happening now. We need to make gains while the pro-RKBA forces are in control. Otherwise, we keep ratcheting backwards everytime the antis are in control.

What makes you think the pro-RKBA forces are in control?

[308win]

They have recieved my vote faithfully since the first Clinton term. It is now time to see some results.

Votes are cheap! Give 'em enough money and you will get the government you want. That is the great thing about living here in Ohio (or the U$ofA for that matter), every citizen has the right to the best government he/she can afford.

[R.H. Lee]

I think we've got a reprieve for awhile. Don't think a Repub congress will push any gun control, but watch out when the balance changes. And it will.

[lostone1413]

They might not push and anti-gun bills but my money says you won't see any pro-gun bills pushed either. With Republicans in control of both houses what do you think we will see??We should see alot of the anti-gun bills from the past gone. Then we should see us mutts have the same rights as active and retired leo has as far as national carry goes. Can Washington make it happen? You bet they can! Will they do any of it?? My money says they won't do a bit of it. Anyone betting i'm wrong????????????

[RealGun]

Make excuses - I prefer a person who loudly announces his stand for a basic freedom and fights for it.

No contemporary President I know of was any darling of the NRA , GOA, et al. All this bluster about it is IMO just another excuse to bash George Bush, who actually had a decent pro-gun record coming in and hasn't done anything to change that to my knowledge. I don't intend to make excuses. I merely try to be objective rather than be predisposed to say the guy (Bush) can't do or say anything right at any time on any issue, which is what some would seem to want me to believe.

My inclination is to accept who the POTUS is and stand behind him. Politically I would be more concerned about the next election.

[Luckyorwhat]

RealGun - I think that the polls show hispanic voters lean towards Republicans.

Hoji - "You know,it truly amazes me the extent you so called "conservatives" will go to defend your lord and master President Bush."

Hoji, man, that's just goin to put people on the defensive, and they won't be able to look at your opinion objectively. If you start off with an insult it doesn't matter what you say next, you won't convince a soul.

Incidentally, from the economic stand-point illegals are good for the economy - it's like inventing a new car engine that gives you 200 miles/gallon. If someome prunes a rich person's garden for $5/hour instead of $20/hour, then that rich person puts the surplus money into other endeavours, they could have 4 gardens pruned for the same price, 400% efficiency.

[RealGun]

RealGun - I think that the polls show hispanic voters lean towards Republicans.

John McCain will set 'em straight. Arizona has had it with the burden on taxpayers presented by illegal immigrants.

[Bainx]

BE READY FOR SELL OUT 2005!

I'm ready to bet-the-farm that you are correct, sir.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Incidentally, from the economic stand-point illegals are good for the economy - it's like inventing a new car engine that gives you 200 miles/gallon. If someome prunes a rich person's garden for $5/hour instead of $20/hour, then that rich person puts the surplus money into other endeavours, they could have 4 gardens pruned for the same price, 400% efficiency."

The problem with that reasoning is that the "illegals" are just exactly that: Criminals. And if you think that somebody who's willing to break our laws in order to enter the country will be obsessively law abiding once they're here... Well, maybe some of them will, but a lot of them don't, and criminal illegal aliens totally swamp any economic benefit from the cheap labor.

The Illegal Alien Crime Wave (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html)

[Selfdfenz]

hoji,

"He is Pro abortion,pro assault weapon ban,pro open border,pro amnesty for all illegals that are already here, pro MASSIVE spending,etc.et al.
Wake up."

Er.....um. X-ring.

"You know,it truly amazes me the extent you so called "conservatives" will go to defend President Bush."

I'm no shrink but I think it's called "denial". Make that "Denial".

In defense of so called "conservatives", we don't all suffer from this disorder.
I'm sure you've heard of a "personality" disorder, this is an "apology" disorder.
:)
S-

[Silver Bullet]

to defend your lord and master
I'm not sure why you chose to be insulting just because someone else has a different opinion. The only folks I know who act like that are college kids who shout down the opposition when they're getting beat in debate.

Hmmm. Perhaps ... yes ! You voted for Kerry last election, and you're the typical blue-county sore loser. Am I right ? Well, I can't help you on that score. You'll have to get over it and get used to it, because we kicked your ass the last election and we're going to kick your ass the next election. Maybe if you had nominated a more mainstream candidate, like Lieberman, you might have done better. Hopefully you won't repeat your mistake by nominating another extreme-left whacko like Hillary.

Have a day.

[El Rojo]

I'm ready to bet-the-farm that you are correct, sir.I was being facetious and sarcastic. There will be no sell out as long as there are elections every two years for all of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate. Bush doesn't create legislation, he only signs it. He can sponsor some legislation and push for it. Funny, even with that power, he didn't push the AWB at all. He knows it is a loser and the party knows its a loser. There will be no new federal gun control for the next two years. You can put money on that.

[Lobotomy Boy]

We could (and probably will) argue for days about whether Bush is a backstabbing anti or not, about the viability of third parties, and about all these other issues, but what are we doing to keep Gonzales from being nominated? Let's take some of this energy and devote it to preventing Bush from putting an anti in the AG office. Here's the letter I wrote to the Republican National Committee:

Mr. Ed Gilespie, Chairman
Republican National Committee

Dear Mr. Gilespie:

This year, for the first time in my life, I voted for Republican candidates. I voted for several Republicans solely on the basis of their professed support of Second Amendment issues, particularly their desire to not renew the insulting, so-called "Assault Weapons Ban," a piece of feel-good legislation that punishes law-abiding weapons collectors while doing nothing to prevent criminal activity.

Now it seems Alberto Gonzales supports this repugnant bit of Clinton-era legislation. Mr. Gonzales also wants to keep some of the more Draconian aspects of the Patriot Act from expiring.

Because of this, I urge you to demand that President Bush withdraw Mr. Gonzales' nomination. In his recent inaugural address, the president stated that he would devote his second term to fighting the enemies of freedom. He can start making good on this promise by refusing to accept Mr. Gonzales, a self-avowed enemy of freedom, into his cabinet.

Thank you,

Let's take care of the immediate threat and then we can debate the finer points.

[El Rojo]

You can write letters until you are blue in the fingers, it won't make a difference. That guy is going to be the next AG and there is not a darn thing we can do about it save find out he has illegal aliens working for him. The party to some extents has to be in the middle to get as many votes as possible. Just like Bush, he talks tough against assault weapons, but when it comes down to it, there will be no new AWB in the next two years. This guy has a puppet master and it isn't just George Bush, it is the whole Republican Party. They know gun control will be a huge loser for them. How many times do we have to go over this?

I mean come on, you just said you voted Republican in the elctions, which doesn't mean you necessarily voted for Bush, but Bush is the head republican and he is on the same plank as Gonzales as far as the AWB goes. Bush just won so the Republican Party isn't going to follow your demands about an appointee that pretty much falls in step with the winning president.

If you really want to make a difference, you need to do so locally. Concentrate your efforts on your state respresentatives, congresscritters, and maybe your senators. Trying to stop this Gonzales thing after he has already been nominated is like trying to plug the 10' hole in the damn with your pinky.

[Lobotomy Boy]

That may be, El Rojo, but at least I'm not a defeatist. You may be ready to roll over and pi$$ on your soft underbelly in submission like a beaten dog, but I'm not.

[El Rojo]

You may be ready to roll over and pi$$ on your soft underbelly in submission like a beaten dog, but I'm not.I guess you didn't bother reading the last paragraph of my post eh? Try reading it again. You might call it rolling over and what not, I call it being smart about politics and understanding what is effective and what is not. Have fun banging your head into the wall all in the name of "not being a defeatist". I guess it didn't take much time to write your little diatribe to the RNC, so hey if you want to bang your head into the wall, that is your right. I just wished you had stuck to the High Road instead of making inferences about my character when you obviously didn't bother to fully read my post, otherwise you would have seen I did advocate a course of action and I am not the "defeatist" you suggest I am.

[Lobotomy Boy]

I agree with your last paragraph, and I apologize for being a bit harsh, but stopping Gonzales is not the point. The point is to put enough fear of retribution at the polls into the Republican leadership so that any anti-gun legislation is DOA.

[El Rojo]

The point is to put enough fear of retribution at the polls into the Republican leadership so that any anti-gun legislation is DOA.You have already accomplished that goal. That is why you won't see a new AWB in the next two years. Gun control is a loser and they know it. I guess your letter won't get much done, but it might serve as a warning to remember that there are many of us out here who are willing to drop them if they go too far.

However, this makes me think. Would I really ever drop the Republican Party on a national level? I am always going to chose the lessor of two evils nationally. However, locally I would fight to get anyone who votes for these things the boot. Again, I think you really have to focus locally where you have the most impact if you really want to get things done. Nationally we just don't have enough power, especially when you have a solidly established two party system that encourages the lessor of two evils approach.

[hoji]

Anyone still not convinced of a sellout?

[longeyes]

Who revived this corpse?

If Bush gets another shot at SCOTUS, Gonzales is odds-on to be his nominee. Bush has unfinished business on his way to total self-eradication.

[Waitone]

Nominating Gonzales is another Harriette Miers moment. Bush was bitchslapped then and he'll be bitchslapped now. Gonzales has entirely too many skeletons in the closet. I specifically refer to his leadership role in La Raza, somehing he has never acknowledged nor for which has he apologized. We don't need racists on the supreme court.

[longeyes]

Yes, that's all true, but Gonsalez is Bush's friend and he's Latino. That seems to exhaust W.'s thinking on this matter.

[308win]

Plus, Gonsalez is part of the package deal; the money people get him for the same money they paid for Bush.

[Molon Labe]

Um, has anyone in the Bush cabinet come out against the AWB? My guess is that everyone in the Bush cabinet supports it. Gonzales was simply speaking his mind.

[longeyes]

The Bush admin "speaking its mind."

Now there's a scary concept. And an absurd one.