USA: "In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban "


PDA






cuchulainn
April 12, 2003, 09:16 AM
http://www.charleston.net/stories/041203/wor_12bushguns.shtmlStory last updated at 7:37 a.m. Saturday, April 12, 2003

In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban

BY SHANNON MCCAFFREY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON--The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election.

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA. President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.

The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.

The assault weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it already is being watched closely.

The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue.

"That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform.

Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for Bush with the NRA."

"The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them," he said.

Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant.

"Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said.

If it is, the NRA has reason to be optimistic.

This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda.

Congress was poised to act on the bill last fall, but the sniper attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their heels and filibuster.

Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton administration. Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers -- modeled on similar litigation against the tobacco industry --so far have been unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court.

Gun-control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of gun violence from getting their day in court.

The gun industry would become the first to receive blanket immunity protections if the bill succeeds.

The action on Capitol Hill coincides with another attempt in court to sue manufacturers, this one by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Filed in New York, the NAACP contends that weapons disproportionately harm minorities. While a number of cities have sued the gun industry with little success in order to collect damages for gun violence, the NAACP lawsuit seeks to impose new restrictions on handgun marketing and distribution.

Testifying at the case was Robert Ricker, the former head of the American Shooting Sports Council, the main gun industry trade association. Ricker is the gun industry's first whistleblower. He says weapons manufacturers have known for some time that dealers were selling firearms to juveniles and criminals but remained silent for fear of being held liable.

The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction. Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore in 2000.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are nervous about the gun issue.

"But it's coming back. I think you're going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in control," she said.

The 1994 bill made it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess certain semiautomatic weapons that discharge one shot for each pull of the trigger and automatically load a round of ammunition without being cocked. The prohibition is due to expire in September 2004.
Copyright © 2003, The Post and Courier

If you enjoyed reading about "USA: "In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban "" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sodbuster
April 12, 2003, 09:24 AM
In surprise move
To whom? Not to me. It wasn't hard to see if one would look through the smokescreen they call Iraq.

Lone_Gunman
April 12, 2003, 09:53 AM
Bush has said all along that he would renew the assault weapons ban, if the Congress were to pass it and send the bill to him.

This is not a change in policy. He has never stated otherwise.

TallPine
April 12, 2003, 09:56 AM
Just part of the Bush plan to lose the election in 2004 ...

(maybe he really is dumb?)

Leatherneck
April 12, 2003, 09:59 AM
The President just carefully drew a bead on his left foot and pulled the trigger. There'll be trouble over this. :fire:

TC
TFL Survivor

hammer4nc
April 12, 2003, 10:07 AM
So here's the question: How much pressure is Bush going to apply on congress to pass the new bill (so he can sign it)? He won't be the first politician to play both sides against the middle, by posturing for a bill he know will never reach his desk...though this is contrary to Bush's advertised "straight ahead" style. Is he just raising the issue to kill more democrats in 2004?

Political history: Remember, the AW ban is thought to have cost the democrats control of the house of representatives (including de-Foley-ating a sitting speaker), in '94. Also, 92% reelection rate for house members voting to repeal the AW ban in '96 (never got through the senate).

I can't believe public opinion has changed that markedly since the mid 90's. Confused?

OF
April 12, 2003, 10:11 AM
Well, either hammer or Leatherneck have it right. Bush is either proving the pundits who say he's no genius on domestic policy matters, or he is a genius and you have to look past the headlines to see it.

We are in charge of the outcome. Make sure this thing never hits his desk so he doesn't have to prove himself one way or the other.

- Gabe

The Rock
April 12, 2003, 10:14 AM
The AWB will die.

We've known Bush Jr is the same as Bush Sr is the same as Clinton. None actually support your right to carry as you see fit, but that should not come as any surprise to anyone who has been paying any sort of attention.

TR

Boats
April 12, 2003, 10:22 AM
Did you guys skip right over Machievelli in school? This is a "compassionate conservative" ploy from the get-go. Just watch it unfold.

Bush comes out in support of extension after getting big negative press write-ups a few months ago for lukewarm comments about the administration supporting the "current law."

However, at least two players have their thinking caps on besides Bush. First, Matt Bennett of "Americans for Gun Safety:rolleyes:" immediately realized that if the president did not use his political clout to push for Congress to act that the extension won't happen. Then Bush could just shrug and say, "I guess the people, as reflected by the House's inaction, just weren't for it anymore." Political cover, baby!

Wayne LaPierre, and the NRA, are also not asleep at the switch. Bush gets to distance himself from the spurious charge that he is in their pocket and LaPierre kills the AWB where they were going to all along anyways--in the House subcommittee on crime or in the House Justice Committee. The fewer people you need to kill it, the better, as House reps from solidly controlled pro-gun districts will never answer for failing to hear an extension of the AWB that their constituents don't want. Even then, if somehow all of the House Democrats come out in favor of gun control via a discharge petition in the House, they don't have the votes to pass it on a floor vote. Remember, the original AWB barely passed in a Demo controled House. It would never pass today without some more high profile criminal crap timed just wrong.

"Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said. Enough said there.

This is politics, not first and goal at the one yard line. Some deception is required to kill the AWB while at the same time not handing a cost-free club to the left wing press and politicians to beat Bush over the head with in front of the soccer moms.

I too think Bush is crazy--like a fox.:evil:

rick_reno
April 12, 2003, 10:28 AM
I hope this is nothing more than smart politics - and he's supporting a bill that he knows he'll never have to sign. Anything else and he's going to be a one term President, like his father. I don't see gun owners - who want some of our Rights restored - voting Democrat, but I could see them sitting out the election. If Congress acts on this and he signs it, I won't support them.

Boats
April 12, 2003, 10:42 AM
Well, that is the gamble Bush is making with his base isn't it? Backchannel they are going to do everything possible to make sure Bush never has to sign anything smacking of gun control.

hammer4nc
April 12, 2003, 10:56 AM
Upon further reflection...this story really is nothing more than an off-handed remark, made in passing by a minor functionary (Scott McClellan, usually briefs the press on Barney the white house dog!), to a single Knight Ritter reporter. Not a news conference, nothing. All the reaction angles were created by the same reporter, making phone calls to various players in the issue, and composing the story. About as far from "white house policy" as you can get. Manufactured news.

We'll never know if this was a clever news plant by Bush, or if Scott McClellan is now getting his pp whacked by boss Ari Fleischer, for blabbing out of turn. My bet is the story will die.

Tamara
April 12, 2003, 11:06 AM
Boy, the mental gyrations an abused spouse will go through to believe "He really does love me, you know!"

He said he supported the ban in his campaign. He's said before that he'd even favor increasing restrictions (ending importation of "hi-cap" mags and banning their posession by people under 21). He's said before that he'd sign a renewal.

That this is considered a surprise by anyone is actually pretty funny, really. :)

Standing Wolf
April 12, 2003, 11:21 AM
Do I look surprised?

4v50 Gary
April 12, 2003, 11:28 AM
No surprise at all. Politics as usual.

Kharn
April 12, 2003, 11:35 AM
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

If its not Ari saying it, its probaby a ploy to cover W's butt when the renewal fails. If Ari announces it with fanfair and such in a big conference, we're in for a back stabbing.

Kharn

Skunkabilly
April 12, 2003, 11:42 AM
What? Doesn't he want to get re-elected?

[Republican-leaning Libertarian]

UnknownSailor
April 12, 2003, 11:45 AM
Boats has a good point, WRT passage of a renewal probably not possible without another "massacre". I hope that between now and September, 2004, that all of those on THR are extra vigilant for another Stockton, or Columbine.

Hkmp5sd
April 12, 2003, 12:00 PM
This is the reason I am really glad the AW ban dies before I make my decision on who to vote for in the next presidential election.

Simple process. Bush signs a new AW ban, I will not vote for him.

Cal4D4
April 12, 2003, 12:18 PM
"Wayne LaPierre, and the NRA, are also not asleep at the switch."

If they actually do snub this in the House it will go a long way to changing my thoughts on the NRA. It may not actually change anything in Kali, but it would be a good gesture of their effectiveness.

Boats
April 12, 2003, 12:29 PM
I'd rather be able to do mental gyrations in the first place than always see the blinkered view of the world.:D Few people, even back in the day, were political purists falling in line with Patrick Henry and "Give me liberty or give me death." Reality has to be dealt with as we find it not as we wish it to be.

Uh, yes, the only pressure that matters to the Administration is pro-2A folks who want the AWB killed.:rolleyes: Newsflash! We are a noisy and potent minority if you haven't been paying attention. I am sure that just like me, you all have some gunowning friends who don't give a second thought to the AWB unless you bring it up first. Those folks are the reason we even have to watch favorable politicians tiptoe through this minefield of gun control.

So yes, let's all castigate Bush for being where the sheeple are on this one. I am so certain it is a heartfelt committment from Jr., rather than a calculated position. A good Prince has henchmen do his dirty work for him while maintaining his popularity before the masses. What do you think Tom DeLay is for? I am very sure that one Texan in the House will get his marching orders on the AWB very distinctly. Bush knows he couldn't push this through the more conservative base of the House of Reps even if he wanted to, which I don't think he does. Karl Rove will see to it that nothing unusual happens absent another sniper/Columbine level incident making non-passage politically suicidal.

And like it or not, just like the vast majority of people with jobs or careers, the Bush White House is not going to chance throwing everything away to please a minority of perpetually disgruntled folks whose views cannot be squared with the majority of satisfied consumers.

The real political problem we have is with those shooters we all know who think that their hunting rifles and shotguns are sacrosanct and the AWB doesn't matter. It is just easier for us to believe that Bush's political machinations geared towards playing both ends against the middle on a very emotionally charged topic are going to be our downfall if the new AWB hits his desk. If it has come down to praying for a veto, then the war was lost when the early shots were fired, not in the last stand, and we'd be playing the role of the French Army.:D

Ian
April 12, 2003, 12:37 PM
But if you don't vote for the Republican, a Democrat will win!

Bush can put all his weight behind a new (and likely worse) AW ban, and the get re-elected by a bunch of duck hunter who are scared that a Democrat would be even worse. :barf:

Waitone
April 12, 2003, 12:48 PM
From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

politician--2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

leader--2 : a person who leads: as a : GUIDE, CONDUCTOR b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence c (1) : the principal officer of a British political party (2) : a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body (3) : such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority d (1) : CONDUCTOR c (2) : a first or principal performer of a group

Neither of the two shall meet.

Bush will not burn political capital fighting for or against the AWB. He will gladly do what congress asks him to do. Not at the top of his priority list.

If you thought by electing Dubya to the presidency you were electing someone who supported the constitution, you are sadly mistaking. He is a politician interested in his own power and the power of his selected party.

You will not get principaled leadership out of a politician. He needs to be scuffed up periodically just to let him know his base will not tolerate being abused.

Remember, the joker signed the Campaign Finance Control Bill.

Hkmp5sd
April 12, 2003, 12:55 PM
But if you don't vote for the Republican, a Democrat will win!

Yep. That is why Bush can confidently state he is all for renewing an AW ban. In his view, we don't have any other choice.

Wrong! I will not vote for Bush if he signs an AW ban. If he does that, there is no difference between him and a democrat and I will not reward Bush for screwing me over.

T.Stahl
April 12, 2003, 02:28 PM
(S)He who thinks that politicians will return any freedoms they managed to take away from you is either a day-dreamer or an incurable optimist.

Note to self: Cancel any thoughts about moving to the USA in a couple of years.

zahc
April 12, 2003, 02:54 PM
:rolleyes: :mad: :fire: :banghead: :cuss: :( :barf:

alan
April 12, 2003, 04:22 PM
Assuming that Shrub was really interested in a second term, how much damage to his chances for same do you think that this ploy has done? I'm also curious as to who on his staff or in The Whitehouse put him up to this. Likely another question that will never be answered.

By the bye, saw the same story in my local paper, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Nightfall
April 12, 2003, 04:37 PM
We just need to make sure that an AWB renewal never leaves the House. As has been said, this won't be a battle we win outside of Congress. The deeper we bury it, the harder time it'll have to work itself to the surface where it matters.

Not that we shouldn't pressure all sides of the decision making process. Just focus your energies where we can kill it earliest.

Hard Charger
April 12, 2003, 05:21 PM
Now is the best time for us to make a stand. We have a republican House and Senate. Their majorities will probably increase in 2004, so a democrat president would have little ability to affect policy. He can veto, but a strong congress can override that.

Instead of the "would you prefer a democrat" mentality that the Bush campaign is counting on, lets go with a different mentality, one that is better for our interests in the LONG term.

The new mentality: "Sometimes you have to prune a tree to make it bear better fruit".

4 years of a democrat president is good for us in the long term. It will open the eyes of the republicans for good.

By not voting for Bush and still voting for Republican House and Senate candidates, we can send a strong signal to future candidates that we are not like the NAACP, and we must have support from our politicians before we support them.

No more one way streets, no more being taken for granted. Bush I counted on the same stupidity from gun owners. He screwed us all the time assuming we would not vote for a democrat.

If a democrat gets elected in 2004, no big deal. He cannot do anything without the Congress.

As for me, I will not vote for Bush, but I will vote for Sen Bill Frist. So when Frist gets 100,000 votes in my precinct, and Bush gets 80,000 Bush and all future republican candidates will know that we are serious about our second amendment rights, and their support of them.

Time to prune the tree folks, it will be better for us in the long run. .If Bush gets away with it this time, the flood gates are open and gun owners will not have any influence in either party.

This very decision by the Bush campaign nullifies the influence of the Second Amendment lobby. Bush wants to prove to the world that he can be anti gun and still get pro gun votes.

If you vote for Bush after this stab in the back, you are giving away your\our political influence. Political muscle is no good if you don't flex and flaunt it.

Our influence is based on our willingness to support or not support according to how a candidate performs on our issue.

You vote for Bush in 2004, you give away your influence.

LoneStranger
April 12, 2003, 05:53 PM
Please remember that the only way you can waste your vote is by failing to use it.

Think of the message you send if Sen. Frist gets 100K votes, Dubya gets 80K, and the Libertarian gets 20K?

With Conservative Republicans you have to use a very big club or they will just try and appease the Democrats.

Monkeyleg
April 12, 2003, 06:11 PM
If LaPierre is confident that the ban will not be renewed, and has whispered as much in Bush's ear, then GW is playing a decent game of politics. On the other hand, if congress does renew the ban, and Bush signs it, I'm through with the Republicans.

GW has surprised a lot of people with what he's managed to accomplish by being under-rated. I'm not looking to be surprised by having him sign it.

Bonker
April 12, 2003, 06:37 PM
"I don't see gun owners - who want some of our Rights restored - voting Democrat, but I could see them sitting out the election. If Congress acts on this and he signs it, I won't support them."


That's it exactly. He doesn't think I'll vote for a Dem no matter what he does.

But I WILL, unfortunately, be forced to vote Libertarian...AGAIN!
:banghead:

riverdog
April 12, 2003, 07:03 PM
The AWB extension won't make it off the Hill. It might make it thru the Senate, but it will never get through the House. Politically, GWB was safe in saying what he said, regardless of how he feels. The Dems and Soccer Moms can't blame him for assault weapons in 2004 and we can still vote for him.

If for some reason this does get through the House and GWB does sign it, a major portion of the Republican base will desert. I will vote libertarian for the first time and I won't care who wins.

Hard Charger
April 12, 2003, 07:31 PM
Now that I have collected my thoughts and reigned in my emotions, I realized this could be a good thing.

Although I am not surprised by this revelation from the Bush Campaign, I think it can work to our advantage.

As one of the few people trying to organize an effort to sunset the ban, I see how little interest gun owners have in working for themselves and their interest. That is how the first bill got passed. Very few people are willing to even write a letter or two to voice opposition, much less do anything really time consuming. They may have been foolish enough to believe Bush would veto a renewal. Now they know better. This could serve as a rally point to get people to act now.

All those poor souls that thought Bush was our ally, have just gotten a wake call. I realize a knife in the back is a rude wake up call, but perhaps that is what it takes. If this shocks enough people into calling their politicians to defeat this in the congress, it could be a good thing.

Lone_Gunman
April 12, 2003, 08:03 PM
Hard Charger,

This certainly shouldnt be a wake up call to anyone, nor has Bush stabbed anyone in the back.

He has always said he would sign a renewal of the AWB, if it was sent to him by the Congress.

When I voted for him in 2000, I knew this was his position.

Safety First
April 12, 2003, 08:14 PM
Well, I'm no politican, but maybe this was a smart move on Bush part. He can pick up support from the anti's for his decision to support the Ban,but as long as he does not work against it either,maybe the pro-gun crowd will not penalize him. I would like to see him come down on the pro-gun side on this issue.

Boats
April 12, 2003, 08:22 PM
Oh let's can the "knife in the back" rhetoric shall we?

It is only a knife in the back if you weren't paying attention. If you voted for Bush in 2002, when what was said during the campaign then is what is essentially being trial ballooned again now, you are two times the fool by your own standards of awareness.

Perhaps a detractor with a decent grounding in reality will enlighten me as to what GWB gains politically by doing his own dirty work for the NRA? I'll tell you what he gets in my view--mercilessly tarred by the Brady bunch and centrist moderates he needs to win a good portion of in the general election that's what. No one wins a general election in this country capturing only his base voters. Please write Bob Dole for pointers on that. This talk about the AWB, said well after the sniper shootings, before any new incidents, by a lower level spokesman, on a Saturday during a foreign war, is not calculated to piss off the gun voter. It is to plant demonstrable "early support" for renewal of the AWB that will not happen anyway. Now, if the issue comes up in debate this year or next and the question comes, "Where was George Bush on this issue?," the chiding answer to the press corps from Ari Fleischer almost speaks itself: It will be, "The President was supporting a renewed AWB back in the spring of 2003, ahead of any of his Democratic challengers, it is too bad that the House doesn't seem to want to pass it, perhaps because a lot of people know that the AWB hasn't really done anything to curb crime."

Besides, what more proof do you need that GWB is really on our side? He signed CCW into law in Texas. He signed lawsuit immunity for the gun industry in Texas and is poised again to do at the federal level. He didn't institute a state AWB like featured in California. He changed 60 years of anti-gun posturing at the Department of Justice.

The lack of political sophistication on this board is appalling. Bush needs to appeal to the center to win, he will have plenty of firepower guarding his right flank. He needs to worry about what's coming from the left and basically has to rely on his own devices there. Cheap lip-service co-option of a Demonrat core issue is easy when he is assured that the House won't do anything to alienate the conservative base voters.

Hard Charger
April 12, 2003, 08:34 PM
I hope you are right Boats.

Please forgive my lack of "political sophistication"; since I take a man at his word. I am not accustomed to twisting a statement and looking for hidden meanings that basically make the original statement a lie. When Bush says he supports it, I assume he means he supports it.

The back stabbing comes from having had Ashcroft make the statements he made a few weeks ago, and now changing positions, yet again.

Who knows, maybe they wil shift positions again.


Hopefully people will get busy with the effort now.

riverdog
April 12, 2003, 08:59 PM
When Bush says he supports it, I assume he means he supports it. But that's not stabbing us in the back. If he gave us no warning, didn't let us (and Congress) know where he stood on the issue, and let it get to his desk where he just used the veto pen, then that would be stabbing us in the back. As it is he has layed his position out as a very clear warning to all concerned -- do not allow it to reach his desk. Forewarned is forearmed, start writing letters.

Lebe
April 12, 2003, 09:09 PM
I, for one, will accept nothing short of absolute support for my second amendment RIGHTS! and I refuse to apologize for any candidate who plays political games with them.

Bush needs to comfront the AWB head on in plain language. Obviously he's not going to do so. He's a politician and a politician has to be very cunning and evasive, lest he lose power.

I refuse to be a part of the government which has been corrupted by endless successions of Democrats and Republicans. From now on I'll be voting the straight Libertarian ticket, if for no other reason than they're not afraid to stand up and voice their agenda. Their opinion on the RIGHT! to keep and bear arms is very plain. Check it out.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/righkeep.html

Hkmp5sd
April 12, 2003, 09:49 PM
If you voted for Bush in 2002, when what was said during the campaign then is what is essentially being trial ballooned again now, you are two times the fool by your own standards of awareness.

If you voted for Bush in 2002, you must live in Florida and Govenor Jeb Bush thanks you for your support. :)

Boats
April 12, 2003, 09:57 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

You might as well register as a Green right now and vote Nader for all the effectiveness you'll have voting a straight Lib vote to "get your rights back." You can sit there and enjoy a Supreme Court appointed by a Demonrat for your troubles if some of you get what you want.

[indignant throwback gun voter]Ya mean da Shrub ain't fer repealin the NFA of '34 and the GCA of '68 da kommunist blackheart?!?!?!?!?

Ya mean dat da President ain't gonna commit political suicide to avenge ma sullied gun rights?!?!?!?

Wll y'all ken jus' go and fugettaboudit den, where's Harry Browne!?!?!?! I'msa feelin' politically impotent.[/iindignant throwback gun voter]

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. The search for the non-compromising, straight-taking politician continues in vain and has been oh, about since, MESOPOTAMIA was the center of the world.

Boats
April 12, 2003, 09:59 PM
Oops. Yep that was a good one. 2000, not 2002.

Lebe
April 12, 2003, 10:09 PM
Yeah, well, laugh it up, Boats,.. but do me a favor. make sure to let me know when either a Democrat or a Republican does anything which meaningfully increases your personal liberties and freedom. I won't be holding my breath until then.

If you think that a President will "commit political suicide" by protecting your second amendment rights, then you're as much as admitting that the cause is already lost,.. and I have to agree,.. as long as either a Dem or a Republican is sitting in the drivers seat.

I guess that you tolerate lies more easily than I do. That seems to be a common trait amoung most Americans these days and it explains a lot about the condition of our government and media.

Selfdfenz
April 12, 2003, 10:09 PM
Boats, I not only hope you are right, I'm praying you are right.

But you can't say that the following statement is unlikely to happen," If for some reason this does get through the House and GWB does sign it, a major portion of the Republican base will desert. "

Bush II would be compelled/bound/promised to sign, if it made it through Congress.

Just because Bush II told the truth, unlike Bush I/no new taxes, he still gets shot out of the saddle. He would be the instrument of our continued discomfort. In this case, screwing your base to pick up middle of the roaders, did not win re-election for Bush I and was no help for Dole.

This approach just does not play with the conservative base. I don't believe this is a big enough issue with cross-overs to help him next election since it's standard equipment on every Dem. None of the liberals believe a word Bush II says, and most of the middle of the roaders have some other issue (abortion, tax cuts, Iraq) ....so where is the pickup?

The fact Bush II made the pre-election statements supporting the AWB was a very scary thing for many of us that did vote for him on the 1st go-round. It was just to distasteful to see Algore win.

We gave Bush II the job in Round 1 but that doen't entitle him to go and do something "unsophisticated".

S-

Boats
April 12, 2003, 10:42 PM
Where is the lie?

Perspective is needed. What is he actually saying? "I support gun control across the board?" No.

Essentially: "I support the current law. If it is renewed I will sign it."

Hmmm. No making it the center of his reelection campaign. No insisting that the Speaker introduce it next week like ol' President Clinton would've done after assembling some "victims" on the Rose Garden Lawn for a photo-op. No invitation to Sarah Brady for brunch tomorrow.

Oh, but wait. Since Bush, (and his advisors obviously) want to steal a little sting from one of the most obvious punches of the liberals going into the silly season he is a traitor right? He is a liar eventhough in campaign 2000 he said the same thing to insulate himself a little from Gore?

Well I don't feel that way because I see evidence of some shrewd plotting. This is classic good cop/bad cop but this time the bad cop is going to get the last say. Bush doesn't need to run to the right of Ron Paul on the Second Amendment to gain a second term. So I turn this on its head. Dissenters can lay out the exact path to destruction right here.

1) Who among the Republican Party is going to sponsor or cosponsor the new AWB?

2) Who is going to schedule it for a hearing, if ever, in each chamber?

3) Who is going to set the rules to ensure that the bill is not "gut and stuffed" into something else or attached to one of the 13 mandatory omnibus legislative acts each session?

4) Who is going to discharge it from the subcommittee?

5) Who is going to discharge it from committee?

6) Who is going to set it for a floor vote if it gets this far?

7) Who is going to allocate time and set rules for a debate?

Here is how I see it played out trench by trench, though I think it won't make it past step three:

1) With some fanfare, Feinstein and Schumer propose the extension of the new AWB, probably in the 2004 election year to have plenty of time to drag it into the presidential campaign. This kind of legislation will probably gain a vote in the Senate because the members there have substantial power even in the minority. If it gets a floor vote, it has a 50/50 chance of passing.

2) At the same time we get the usual House suspects like McCarthy and others to sponsor the same in the House. Hastert assigns it to the Crime & Terrorism subcommittee where it never sees the light of day.

3) The Demonrats make some noise in the press about it being stalled. After some more stalling it is given a subcommittee vote where it fails. It will decidedly not get past the full Justice Committee if it somehow manages to get there in the first place.

4) The Democrats attempt to make it an appropriations rider somewhere else. They will be defeated, especially since it will be pointed out that the rules forbid it or some other procedural tactic will be used to kill it.

5) Demonrats, never taking no for an answer, find friendlier territory in a different committee with a lot of northeastern RINOs on it. They gut and stuff something to revive the AWB and get a number of their members to sign a discharge petition to schedule a floor vote.

6) Oops, it never gets scheduled before the fall recess for campaigning. More pressing business you know?

7) GWB gets a little excoriation for not spending political capital to get over the House oppostion but everyone understands it is difficult to do things that respected factions of the party do not want. Shrug.

Lebe
April 12, 2003, 11:08 PM
Members of Congress will use their influence in whatever manner they deem is most advantagious to their careers,... ethics, morals and dedication to the Constitution will play no part in their stance.

On that, you and I seem to agree, Boats.

Tamara
April 12, 2003, 11:23 PM
...just how badly do you need to get stomped on by a politician to cause you to vote for someone else? What exactly do they have to do for you to deny them your vote?

I'm not a voting bloc, I'm not a PAC, I don't have thousands of voters backing me, nor do I have millions of dollars to donate. All I have is my one politically naive ballot. Overall, I've been less p.o.'ed with Dubya than with any sitting president since Reagan, so I've set myself a simple criteria:

No new AW ban: The GOP gets mah vote for the fust time since '88.
New AW ban: Yet anuthuh straight libuhtarian ticket vote.

;)

ahadams
April 12, 2003, 11:25 PM
I think Boats is essentially correct - this is a form of a trial balloon floated by a relatively minor whitehouse press official. As phrased what he's telling all of us it to ensure that congress never lets the renewal see the light of day. Considering the congressional numbers I think that's a doable. It also will tend to further divide the demoncratic leadership between the moderates and the pelosi - type wackos, which is certainly a nice side effect at least IMHO.

firestar
April 12, 2003, 11:46 PM
You people that think Bush is some sort of supporter of your rights are funny. I would love to sell you some bridges.:rolleyes:

He stabbed us in the back period! How can you defend this action? How is he a friend of us? At least we won't have to put up with it much longer, there is no chance of him getting my vote now! I think it is write in vote time. Thanks Bush, good job! Whats next, Bush?

Zander
April 12, 2003, 11:55 PM
We just need to make sure that an AWB renewal never leaves the House.Precisely!

The battle will be fought in the House of Commons; if it doesn't make it out of the House, it can't possibly be signed into law.

No one in The Swamp is laboring under any misconception to the contrary. They know the score...they've known it since 1994, and Al "no controlling legal authority" Gore's defeat in key states was accompanied by the blare of a klaxon in the citizen-disarmament camp.

It's up to us...we must make sure that our federal representatives vote to deny the renewal of this "ban".

Ignore the politics, especially from those who insist that only a thundering denunciation from Dubya is acceptable, and apply pressure in the proper places. The tide has truly turned, and a significant victory is within our reach.

Let's make it happen...

Zander
April 13, 2003, 12:07 AM
No new AW ban: The GOP gets mah vote for the fust time since '88. -- TamaraGeez, intel is a wonderful thing.

Thank you for helping siphon off votes from Algore; you did vote as a Tennessee resident in the last presidential election, didn't you?

I won't bother asking for whom you cast that vote...if you did.

Boats...

Exceptional analysis...keep it up! :cool:

Diesle
April 13, 2003, 01:49 AM
Ummmm, this thing (when written...) wont even make it through house commitee. Its silly to even consider having this jump through the hundreds of burning rings it would have to to make it to Bush's desk.


Diesle

BogBabe
April 13, 2003, 10:34 AM
But if you don't vote for the Republican, a Democrat will win!

And the difference to us as gun owners would be ....?

Marko Kloos
April 13, 2003, 10:56 AM
Thank you for helping siphon off votes from Algore;

You know, I am just about sick of being told to vote for guy A because he sucks just a little less than guy B. In retrospect, I don't think Algore could have incinerated the Constitution any faster than GWB, although he would have held the Zippo to a different part of the parchment first. After the USA PATRIOT act, it's a bitter irony to read faded pro-Dubyah bumperstickers that read "Vote Freedom First".

When exactly are we going to get pro-gun legislation out of the Republicans? It didn't happen during the "Republican Revolution" of 1994-1996, and it's not happening now, with a Republican-controlled Congress *and* Oval Office. What mythical constellation do the stars have to take for the Republicans to take an unabashed pro-gun stance and actually pass some pro-gun legislation?

If I am presented with two piles of dung, and asked which one I'd prefer for lunch, don't complain when I decline to pick either one. Don't delude yourself into thinking that you're striking a blow for freedom just because you pick the right-wing Statist instead of the left-wing Statist. Granted, the right-wing Statist will leave you your guns a little longer, but that's a small consolation. With so many people thinking that a vote for a third party is "thrown away", or active assistance for That Other Guy, it's no wonder that the Bill of Rights is losing more and more meaning every day.

Don't ask me for a strategy to fix it; I don't have one. All I can do is vote my conscience. Nobody who sets fire to the Constitution is worthy of my vote. The majority of "pro-freedom" folks in this country really mean "pro-freedom as long as I support that particular freedom". Nobody, except for a small minority of "idealistic" and "utopian" Libertarians and Constitutionalists, can bear the thought that in a truly free society they don't get to tell others what to do. The system is thoroughly screwed up, and every election is "an advance auction of stolen goods", as H.L. Mencken puts it. It's a big bribery racket, and the only winners are government Statists from both sides of the aisle. The natural tendency of government is to expand, and as it expands, our remaining freedom contracts.

There will be a time in our lifetimes where massive social unrest will come: when the Dolists outnumber the productive class, and the bribes paid out to the Dolists and subsidy recipients tally up to more than the remaining revenue from the worker bees.

BogBabe
April 13, 2003, 10:57 AM
Ignore the politics, especially from those who insist that only a thundering denunciation from Dubya is acceptable, and apply pressure in the proper places.

I hope we do manage to apply the necessary pressure and that the ban doesn't make it to W's desk for signature.

However .... I think we do need for political leaders, including W, who supposedly support our 2A rights, to stand up and say the AWB is wrong and should not be renewed.

Having Bush say he supports it and will sign it if it's renewed does nothing but provide encouragement to the gun-grabbers to continue their evil ways, and encourage the attitude among too many gun owners that the AWB is a "reasonable" restriction and that gun-grabbing is perfectly okey-dokey so long as they're still allowed to go duck hunting.

Lebe
April 13, 2003, 11:03 AM
lendsringer,.. as a relative "newbie" here, it's a great relief to see that there's at least one other member of this forum who has cast off his rose colored glasses and taken a good look at where we are.

I strongly agree with your perpsective.

Boats
April 13, 2003, 12:18 PM
Saint Rand, we invoke thee!!! Saint Rand! Saint Rand??? Sain. . . ."

That's right she was an atheist. She ain't coming back.:evil:

Yep. Those genius Founders didn't set up a parliamentary system so that we could have a Green Party and a Beer Party or the Silly Party. This country has always been two party because that is what the system foments. It is possible for one of the two major parties to go Tango Uniform, just as the Whigs did following the Mexican-American War. Looking at the two parties today, the Democrats are closer to implosion than are the Republicans. After all, when the free pie is finite in size and your gluttonous faction members all want the biggest slice, the bakers get disgusted and cut them off. It has happened, and is happening.

Then again, maybe the "consumptive class" is really a Marxist proletariat revolution in disguise.:D

If my analysis proves incorrect, I will come eat as large a helping of crow as you all may wish. I do agree with several of the posters here that if this strategy backfires I will join them in destroying the careers of as many of those responsible as possible, including the President.

Another thing occurred to me this morning. By saying he supported the current law all along, Bush has given himself an out to veto any legislation that expands the AWB if that somehow hits his desk. "This is NOT the ban I agreed to support and I cannot in good conscience sign it." Or he could give it a pocket veto when Congress isn't in session.

Ian
April 13, 2003, 12:29 PM
This country has always been two party because that is what the system foments. At least when they were the Federalists and anti-Federalists they were honest about what they wanted to do. Now we just have Federalist A and Federalist B.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that you're striking a blow for freedom just because you pick the right-wing Statist instead of the left-wing Statist.
Amen, Lendringser.

Lebe
April 13, 2003, 12:43 PM
Nothing wrong with a two party system, as long as the two dominant parties (and their lackey media) doesn't use their power to exclude challengers.

Until the people are allowed to hear debates which include candidates from all viable parties, the people aren't being given freedom of choice,.. period.

What we have now is a plutocracy. Except for a few, insignificant pet issues, there's really no difference in how the country is ran by either the Democrats *or* the Republicans. Every 4 years Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber is paraded out in front of the American people and we're "allowed" to select the one whom we visualize as being the least damaging to our way of life. In 2000 it was Bush and Gore. Do you honestly believe that our fine country can produce no one more capable than those two clowns to lead our government?!

Fact is, our government is closed to anyone who refuses to "play the game". Men of real ethics and conviction refuse to consider national political office because of this fact. Consequently, we get to choose between a few "made men" who are all bought and paid for before you ever hear their name mentioned.

In summary,.. a vote for either a Democrat or a Republican will do NOTHING to enhance your life. You're not a part of those governments,.. you simply feed them.

Libertarians,.. for significant change,.. for true liberty and freedom for the future generations.

Boats
April 13, 2003, 12:50 PM
Yep, one is definitely "striking a blow for freedom" by voting for an irrelevant candidate.

I could respect the Libertarian Party if they could win some elections and begin building from the ground up instead of just qualifying for the ballot.

Run for dog catcher. Run for the soil conservation district. Run for the school board. Run for something that can be won and then run for something big. But that is not what the LP is all about. Instead they try to run as nothing but spoilers. Talk about liars. In Oregon, we are not strangers to Libertarian campaigns for every avaialable office. Not once have I read or heard an LP candidate give a speech that acknowledges their real agenda. They give speeches about what they will do if they win. Capital B Capital S!

Were they the vaunted purveyors of the truth that they fancy themselves, they'd be giving speeches on which planks of their outlandish platform they wish the Republican Party give consideration to adopting into their platform. There could scarcely be a bigger lie than talking about one's policies in the event of a win, when one's party has never even visited the lofty heights of 15% of the popular vote in 99.99999% of all elections the LP has ever entered.

Tamara
April 13, 2003, 12:54 PM
So, it's a party's chances of winning that determine whether we should vote for them, and not their stance on freedom and the Constitution? Interesting... ;)

Boats
April 13, 2003, 01:03 PM
Well you can read that in from what I wrote, though I was commenting on lying being somewhat a matter of perspective.

It is an unfortunate fact of political life that one has to muster more votes than the alternatives. Libertarians do nothing that I can discern to broaden their appeal. It is as if they are a bunch of self-flagellating hairshirts who think their remonstrances over the good old days will compel mothers to support privatizing education piecemeal and concerned parents to simply wheel and legalize drugs and other such things that people have been long conditioned to expect as the role of government.

So I do not share the belief that the LP will ever amount to anything more than fringe status. At least in my direct experience, they do nothing that convinces anyone that they will change anything. Rather than running for an attainable office, demonstrating the interface between rhetoric and reality, they'd rather get the same +/- 5,000 votes in a congressional district. Big deal.:rolleyes:

Lebe
April 13, 2003, 01:05 PM
Boats,... expressing a statist mindset is the same as giving tacit approval to anything that your party of choice decides to do. By doing so, you're essentially giving them the ability to behave in a totalitarian manner.

8 years of the Clinton administration demonstrated just how apathetic the people are concerning the behavior of our heads of state,.. and federal politicians from sea to shining sea took note of that fact. A precedent was established. (most politicians are lawyers,... lawyers are real big on precedent!)

Our economy is trashed,.. we're in a war with no specifically declared enemy and no forseeable end, the administration and Congress are shredding the BOR in an attempt to "fight terrorism",.. and Bushes approval rating is said to be in the high 60% range.

All because of a statist mindset. People simply can't envision an alternative social and political reality,... in part, because they never get exposed to such,.. thanks to the power of the status quo.

ambidextrous1
April 13, 2003, 01:07 PM
Let's be vigilant; let's think until it hurts; let's be very careful.

I believe Wayne LaPierre is correct in his prediction that the issue will die in Congress; we can help this happen by writing our elected representatives (and senators) - you do write them once in a while, don't you?

In the event that the bill does head toward the Oval Office, we can encourage GWB to make the right decision by writing to him on the issue.

If none of this works, we are forced to do what we all too often do: We go to the polls, we hold our nose, and we vote for the re-election of GWB.

The election of a Democrat president in 2004 is not acceptable ; we do not want a Democrat packing the Supreme Court with liberal-socialists!

The options aren't as good as we would like, but our best options are clear.

:banghead:

Boats
April 13, 2003, 01:10 PM
All because of a statist mindset. People simply can't envision an alternative social and political reality,... in part, because they never get exposed to such,.. thanks to the power of the status quo.

I was going to say something about this, but I remembered that this is the High Road and my comments were scathingly patronizing.

Suffice it to say that many people have been exposed to libertarian thought and Libertarian politics and they aren't nearly as infectious as you think they are and leave it at that.

Lebe
April 13, 2003, 01:12 PM
Or we could say that many people are afraid of true freedom and leave it at *that*.

Some people need the government to be their mommy and daddy,... some don't.

Boats
April 13, 2003, 01:27 PM
:D :rolleyes:

Many of the proponents of "true freedom" wouldn't do so well in the system they advocate. Failure is as failure does. Beware what you wish for or you might be living next to someone who has seventeen junked cars on his property, loudly beats his kids, and burns trash regularly with you downwind and doesn't raise enough chickens to pay for a decent dentist.:neener:

Tamara
April 13, 2003, 01:32 PM
...and you'd find confiscatory taxes and onerous regulations preferable to that? I'll take my chances with the neighbours, thanks. Neighbours you can reason with; rulers you can't. ;)

Guntalk
April 13, 2003, 01:33 PM
Here's the deal.

If it doesn't get out of committee, the House will never hear it.

Unless the House passes a bill, there is nothing left to do.

Nothing can go to the Senate.

Nothing gets sent to the President.

Who controls the House? Did you count the votes on the pre-emption bill in the House last week?

Interesting politics, to be sure, but pretty easy to figure out.

Boats
April 13, 2003, 01:40 PM
But you don't get it Tom! GWB isn't out front raving about taking the Second Amendment back to its glory days of 1783!;)

Wildalaska
April 13, 2003, 01:58 PM
and you'd find confiscatory taxes and onerous regulations preferable to that? I'll take my chances with the neighbours, thanks Neighbours you can reason with; rulers you can't.

Sorry Ill take my chances with taxes and regulations...them you can at least try to kill, neighbors you cant.

As long as the world has nitwits, laws are required. Libertarians sometimes as irrationally silly as the kumbaya crowd, jest dressed nicer and less smelly.

Irie, jah

WildcombinmahdreadloscksAlaska

Tamara
April 13, 2003, 02:02 PM
GWB isn't out front raving about taking the Second Amendment back to its glory days of 1783!

...or he could just say nothing... ;)

Guntalk
April 13, 2003, 02:32 PM
"he could say nothing"

But ... If he knows the bill will never reach him, he can make the statement he did, and help his re-election chances.

No harm, no foul.

There is much going on behind the scenes, and nothing is what it seems.

Taking this on face value would be a mistake, I think.

BogBabe
April 13, 2003, 02:45 PM
If he knows the bill will never reach him, he can make the statement he did, and help his re-election chances.

IOW, he can side with the gun grabbers and philosophically sell out our 2A rights in order to increase his chances of re-election.

I get it now. Our "allies" in the 2A fight have to side with our "enemies" and sell out our rights in order to maintain power so that they can help us fight for our rights.

It's all crystal clear now.

<sarcasm>I don't understand why anyone would object to this approach. </sarcasm>

ahadams
April 13, 2003, 03:04 PM
you can either work within the system - in this case by insuring that pro-2A forces in the House never allow the bill to see the light of day.

or

you can do something that is at best useless and at worst contributes to the furthering of a police state by the most direct means possible: vote for anarcho-libertarians - they wont ever win (the rest of us will see to that) but it might just throw the votes in enough places to let the socialists regain control of the government.

I really don't care what the anarcho-libertarians think they're doing, I will still be very vocal about blaming them as much as the socialists/greens if and when our society falls down due to the ineptitude of both groups.

I think those of us on the conservative Republican side of things need to start getting a bit more confrontational on this. Sure there will always be a few percent of the population that are attracted to wacko philosophies, but we need to stop pretending the anarcho-libertarians are mainstream and just get on with business.

No more compromises.

Tamara
April 13, 2003, 03:10 PM
Sure there will always be a few percent of the population that are attracted to wacko philosophies,

A "few percent"? I'd say the vast majority of the people are into "wacko philosophies", like majoritarianism, income redistribution, legalized theft, statism, and all kinds of other weird stuff... ;)

No more compromises.

So stop compromising.

"Okay, stealing 50% of my money annually is wrong! You can only steal 20%!"
"I'll let you ban machine guns, but you'd better not touch my semiautos!"
"You can ban alcohol on Sundays, but not on any other day!"

You were saying something about compromising? :)

Waitone
April 13, 2003, 03:20 PM
ahadams has it right.

Remember esteemed members of THR.

There would have been no President Clinton if it were not for H. Ross Perot.

Perot syphoned votes away from Bush XLI and handed the election to Clinton.

Boats
April 13, 2003, 03:25 PM
I can smell a Libertarian America now. First, the borders are opened up and the entire Third World moves here.

The feint is stricken as a tactic from the Army and Navy War Colleges--that is right after the respective services are whacked down to relative deterrence posture of a Yukon border inspection station and the Lake Geneva Yacht Club respectively. Camoflague is considered too deceptive and is abandoned for the old blue jackets.

A boxer does the rope-a-dope and gets booed for sucking in his gullible opponent for the KO.

The play-action fake is abolished from football. Hand signals are banned from baseball, both by popular demand, not the government, because coaches should just declare to the other side what they are going to do and then just do it.

You decide to sue when "New & Improved" really isn't and you break out in hives from the untested "secret" ingredient in your soap. The treatment is going to cost $20,000 a year for two years. Problem is it only reacts to one of every 100,000 people's body chemistry so the maker is denying it is their fault and your health insurer, whom you can barely pay, doesn't cover dermatology.

So you've discussed it with a lawyer, but first you have to plug the toll booth at the end of your driveway after having thrown a quarter in your flush toilet change box before you leave and paying another quarter to wash your hands because the old way of metering wasn't precise enough for the LP purists and there is no state or federal subsidy of the water and sewer sytems where you live.

Then you have spent all of your change and can't park anywhere because there are no public roadways or parking anywhere in brave new America. You finally park on some abandoned looking stretch of railroad near your lawyer's and because she was the only one in the state with the bucks and cojones to tackle Proctor and Gamble you have an appointment. But look at this!?! "No Guns Allowed on this Property." It seems that she is going through a nasty divorce and will be the only one gettting through her metal detector with a gat. What to do? Since the school system has been starved to death and everyone is too put upon to lock anybody up, you see some local toughs eyeing you, your car, and the lock box you are being asked to put your firearm into at your own risk.


Yep. Utopia. There is always the incurable hives.:D ;)

Tamara
April 13, 2003, 03:32 PM
Well-written reductio ad absurdum is always so fun to read, especially when heavily laced with non sequitir and false dichotomy. :)

Bainx
April 13, 2003, 03:41 PM
btt

Boats
April 13, 2003, 03:43 PM
Hey, reductio floats my boat!;) It is a pleasure to write for someone who recognizes it.:D At this rate I will soon be up to 2500 posts myself.

I can just imagine the future citizens of Las Vegas holding a series of raffles and bake sales to buy the Hoover Dam because the company that owns it wants too much money from the citizens in order to repair cracks in it and turn a profit.

It is just too easy to imagine the inanities of such a system.

Justin
April 13, 2003, 04:08 PM
It's no secret that politics, like picking pockets, is a form of art that involves distracting the audience with one hand while doing something sneaky with the other.

As such, I can understand that this statement may be nothing more than a feint by Bush jr. to stuff a sock in the mouths of the anti-gun movement.

However, I'm an incurable realist (some would say cynic) and I have a hard time believing that Dubya has any real love for the pro-gun movement.

Besides, the apple, they say, does not fall far from the tree. Or has everyone forgotten just who signed the 1989 import ban into law?

Hint: Clinton wasn't elected until 1993.

Tamara
April 13, 2003, 04:11 PM
Hint: Clinton wasn't elected until 1993.

Yeah, it's interesting to hear GSC's refer to the thumbhole stock on their bayonet lugless MAK90 as a "Klinton stock". When you point out that it's a "Bush stock", they just give you this deer-in-the-headlights look.

Justin
April 13, 2003, 04:14 PM
I really don't care what the anarcho-libertarians think they're doing, I will still be very vocal about blaming them as much as the socialists/greens if and when our society falls down due to the ineptitude of both groups. That's fine. Play the blame game all you want. But while you're sitting there like Chicken Little blathering on about how the sky is falling, I hope you're at least honest enough to admit to yourself that the Republicans are nearly as anti-gun as the Democrats. After all, the AW ban wouldn't have ever been signed into law without the help of the Republicans in office at the time. This means that the Republicans are nearly as criminal as the Democrats, or they're simply the most willfully stupid bunch of people to ever get together.

Trying to choose between Democrats and Republicans is like trying to choose between dying of Ebola or cancer. Sure, cancer is a lot slower, but you know what? You're still just as dead.

:banghead:

Of course, the above post applies only to the RKBA. When you look at the record of the Republican party, they're just as happy to use the Bill of Rights for toilet paper as the Democrats. While the Democrats are merrily banging away at the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, the Republicans happily set ablaze the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments.
http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3847/bill_of_rights_jump.jpg
image taken from The Onion.

Lone_Gunman
April 13, 2003, 04:19 PM
Justin,

Injecting yourself with the Ebola Virus is not a cure for cancer.

ahadams
April 13, 2003, 04:30 PM
I hope you're at least honest enough to admit to yourself that the Republicans are nearly as anti-gun as the democrats. After all, the AW ban wouldn't have ever been signed into law without the help of the Republicans in office at the time.

uh, Justin, I didn't say the Republicans never did anything stupid, but you are very confused if you think that the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress are now anywhere near as queasy as they were in the early '90's. The only way a claim could be made to the contrary is if one was expecting to have them repeal everything right now, and that sort of an expectation could only come from either blinding ignorance of how the system works or a total misunderstanding of the fact that short of armed revolution (which I and a lot of other gun owning Republicans would be more than happy to help put down) there will be no sudden abolition of the system.

We got into this mess a little at a time by pretending we didn't have to work within the system, and thus being steamrollered by it. We will get out of this a little bit at a time as we slowly bend the entire system to our will in this matter. The only way this latter may be accomplished is through developing and maintaining influence in one of the major parties. Since we've already developed influence in the Republican party, that's who we can continue to work with in developing further influence in the same direction. Gun owners who claim to support the 2A but then throw their votes on minority party candidates such as the anarcho-libertarians who have no chance of winning at the federal level (or even state level around here) are only supporting the socialist gun grabbers. That's reality. Sorry it doesn't fit your preconceptions, but don't worry a lot of folks are finding that out these days, so at least you wont be lonely.

Jack T.
April 13, 2003, 04:38 PM
Although this topic has gotten pretty far from the original subject, I'd like to throw my $0.02 in and share my strategy for the next election, namely, money talks.

I believe that the country is so divided politically now that elections in the future are gonna make the 2000 election look like a landslide. I have been blessed tremendously and have the ability to contribute signifantly to politicians now, and plan to do so in 2004. That way, politicians can use my contribution ( hopefully ) to win the few votes needed for the majority. . .and then they owe me. I hate to be accused of trying to buy a politician, but that is exactly what I am going to do. . .at least until such time as it is feasible for me to run for state/national office myself. . .

Write letters, send emails, make phone calls. . .but money talks louder. . .

Lebe
April 13, 2003, 04:44 PM
It seems as if some on here choose to equate Libertarianism with anarchy. I can't say that I agree, but I *can* see their point somewhat. Some of us "old world" conservatives (not the neo variety) have HAD to choose Libertarian ideas as a result of watching what's become of our government evolve into a bizarre combination of watered down communism and fascism. You could say that we're the "reluctant anarchists".

http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

ahadams
April 13, 2003, 04:46 PM
Jack T. you are essentially correct, though for those of us who don't have a lot of money, doing volunteer work for candidates - and I don't mean just hanging a sign on the front lawn - works well also. My wife and I don't have the money to contribute a lot, but we handed out a couple of hundred bumperstickers and about 50 or 60 of those "Land of the Free / Home of the Brave" NRA pins to folks and it was *obvious* that it made a difference. Looking to do more in 2004.

Jack T.
April 13, 2003, 04:54 PM
oh, heck yeah ahadams! anything to get the canidate in your "debt", so to speak. . .Even if only 1 out of every 10 people who took one of those stickers voted for your canidate, you still pulled in 20 extra votes! Which means that you were 20 times more valuable to the canidate than a guy who just voted and did nothing else to help the campaign.

Funny you should mention that. . .I talked to our state rep during the last election, asked if I could help, gave him my email address and told him to PLEASE let me know if there was anything I could do to help. . .Never heard a word from him. He lost the election.

ahadams
April 13, 2003, 05:04 PM
The bumpersticker thing is sort of odd, in that it has a number of secondary effects, the most prominant being that a bumpersticker on a car, especially on the car of someone who commutes or drives regularly over a given route provides name recognition and re-enforcement at a level out of all proportion to it's cost. There's at least one study that was done after the 2000 elections, though I disremember which city it was in, that showed that compared to name recognition generated by radio ads, the number of people polled who cited their primary introduction to the candidate being via bumperstickers broke down to the equivalent of 250 bucks worth of media exposure for every bumpersticker out there. Even if all we got them to do was put it on their cars or trucks and leave it there until the election, we accomplished a whole lot more than just getting those few individuals to vote...kinda amazing actually.

Sir Galahad
April 13, 2003, 05:31 PM
Having had the anarcho-libertarian debate here already, I'm not going to get back into it. But I think the motivating factors for a lot of people who are no longer willing to be part of the current system which lies and passes lies masquerading as laws. For example, property tax. Now, here you paid tax on the income to purchase the property. But now you get to pay tax yearly because you own the property. How about sales tax? Now, instead of raising revenue for county/city government, it becomes a tool of harrassment for tobacco users and, possibly in the future, gun owners. There are even sales tax penalties in the works for soda and "junk food". So, here, we see the government punishing people finacially for making adult decisions to use tobacco or drink soda. Now lets go to the 2nd Amendment. Should there even be a NEED to defend it if it were not possible for picayune interpretations of it? How about federal income tax? I recently heard that troops in Iraq will be graciously given extra time to file their tax returns since they're busy trying to remain alive. How generous! How compassionate! Of course, some of that tax money will be given as aid to places that support terrorism. Like the UN. How about state tax? Help finance your state's social engineering projects. All you rural folk get to pay for the biggest city in your state to tell you how to live. Not to mention all the BS little laws that can be put on the books when no one is looking. Or the BS laws any crackpot can get enough signatures on a petition to put on the ballot and then lie enough to get it passed by people who vote without knowing the issues but vote by choosing what "sounds cool". (Why, oh, why, do people have to pass certain tests to get a CCW in some states but NOT have to pass a test to see if they're competant to vote??) Look at the wackjob that tried to pass a law forbidding coffee shops to sell any coffee that isn't organic. This is a problem; when people can even PROPOSE laws that deprive others of rights. In such cases, you're just crossing your fingers that the voters are not THAT stupid to vote it into being law. How about the wackos that use the courts to stop forest thinning and catastrophic wildfires result? The courts are used to circumvent laws that protect rights or make precedents to deprive others of rights later on. How come if YOU say something untrue on a government paper it's called perjury and you go to jail, but when a politician says something untrue to millions of citizens on national TV after having sworn an oath to uphold the law, it's just "politics"?

That said, I do not see any new system as being a perfect solution. The problem is that, historically, the "new" system that will remedy all the ills of the previous one, turns out as bad or worse than the previous one. It is human nature to try and find solutions to problems. It is also human nature for some to be predators and others grazers. It is one thing to propose a new system of government. But PROVING it even CAN work is quite another. Because if it fails, it's not merely the butts of the framers of the new system on the line, but the butts of everyone. That is why it takes more than an internet discussion to say whether or not something will work. When we see anarcho-libertarians evolve past the internet and actually hold some constitutional conventions and start laying framework for the basis of a new system, then they can be taken seriously. Until then, they're just talk.

Boats
April 13, 2003, 06:12 PM
I would only point out that it is not the "government" abusing us. It is all a form of self-abuse, the only real detail of which is how abusive we make it to ourselves.

Perhaps one of these days, when my kids are a little more grown, I will see if it is possible to campaign my way into the Oregon legislature on a platform containing the dozen or more laws and/or regulations I propose to repeal. It would be interesting to see if an "anti-law" platform would actually work.

WonderNine
April 13, 2003, 08:49 PM
My opinion of chimpy just took another nosedive.

Lone_Gunman
April 13, 2003, 08:51 PM
Wondernine:

Why did your opinion take a nosedive?

That makes no sense at all, he has simply reiterated something already said.

Silver Bullet
April 13, 2003, 08:51 PM
If the Senate renews this, and if the Prez signs it, I will not vote for him next time. What lesson do the Republicans learn if we vote them in again ? We'll be like the black Americans who vote Democrat no matter what: the Republicans don't waste their energy trying to win their vote, and the Democrats figure they don't need to promise them anything.

If Bush thinks he needs to scrub off (no pun intended) some of his current constituency to get a more mainstream position, let him scrub off somebody else. Regardless of what kind of ingenious three-levels deep politicking he thinks he's doing, I don't appreciate his telling mainstream America that the AWB is a good thing. I think that makes it more acceptable to the mainstream, where previously they might have regarded it as just a left-wing wet dream, not something that America really needed.

I won't vote Democrat unless it's a pro-RKBA dem. I might vote Libertarian, I might write-in Ron Paul. In fact, I think that would be a good strategy for anybody who decides to not vote Republican because of this issue: write in Ron Paul; it will be a very clear signal of our voting strength, and will get gobs of publicity for Paul.

WonderNine
April 13, 2003, 09:24 PM
Wondernine:

Why did your opinion take a nosedive?

That makes no sense at all, he has simply reiterated something already said.

Because in the 2000 Presidential race he said that he supported the ban "in its current form". He never said he had plans to renew it. In fact he never would have had to say another word about it again and he still would have been true to his word.

There was no reason for him to come out with this press release unless he really is dumb enough to want to renew it. And now I know he is.

Lone_Gunman
April 13, 2003, 09:53 PM
Actually Wondernine, I believe he was already on record saying he would renew it, if Congress passed it, and a bill was sent to his desk.

I can't back that up with documentation, though.

"in its current form" would certainly leave open the possibility he would renew it, though, based on that alone.

ahenry
April 13, 2003, 10:29 PM
I have a slightly different take on this than I did in past discussions even all the way back to TFL. In the past my view was that Bush was giving abundant heads up to voters to put in the right congressmen. In fact, I think it was a political move to try and galvanize voters for congressional races the same way it did for his presidential race. In that light, while I was not overly happy about it, I was at least understanding of it. It was my view that Bush was looking to turn this issue into one that gave him a stronger republican congress, and I think it would (will) work. Bush has consistently been a master politician and has out played and out maneuvered his opponents time and again. Now, with all that said I am going to toss it out the window and say that I don’t think Bush will sign the AWB even if it gets to his desk. Bush has had something of a “change of heart” after Sept 11th. While he has always been more of a “Reaganitte” than his father ever dreamed of being he was still at heart a politician and less willing to standup and take the heat of a controversial decision, he is that no longer. Now he still is a politician but he is now less concerned with playing the political game than he is with doing what he thinks is right for America (and his decisions are not at all ones I always agree with). I have always thought that his personal view of the AWB is that he would like to see it go away. Prior to Sept. 11 I think he was willing to play the issue on a purely political level and use it as a way to maximize his political clout by gaining republican seats. I think he will still play that game but in the end I think he will do exactly what he thinks is right for America, and I don’t think he thinks gun control (in any format) is right for America. As always actions speak far louder than words, and in this case his actions speak volumes.




You know, I am just about sick of being told to vote for guy A because he sucks just a little less than guy B. I’ve got a couple of crisp hundreds for you if a Libertarian president is ever a solution to our Nations troubles. I know you feel the same way, you said as much farther down in your post. The thing is the “solution” is either revolution, which is neither feasible nor assured in its final result, or one of the two parties. Not exactly a set of options I am fond of but nevertheless the ones we find ourselves confronted with. There is an additional facet of the latter “solution” and that is grassroots involvement in gov’t. If you don’t mind my asking, what was the last gov’t position you held?

NIGHTWATCH
April 13, 2003, 11:13 PM
Its all a front. The AWB will die. :evil:

twoblink
April 13, 2003, 11:19 PM
Read between the lines people. "I'll sign it... IF it passes". That's the "hint hint, nudge nudge"..

IF it passes. The ban is gonna die. We just gotta make sure we drone our congress critters about it.

dustind
April 14, 2003, 01:17 AM
Boats, and some of the other Libertarian bashers, which direction do you want this country to move a few inches? A little more towards socialism, a police state, anti constitution, less individual freedom, less privacy, etc. Or... a few inches closer to individual freedom, a smaller gov, maybe a few constitutional rights restored (wouldn't hold my breath, but hopefully we wouldn't see any more gone) etc.

I don't think electing a Libertarian president would turn the USA into anarchy(nor do i think they're anarcists). I dont think libertarians can win this year, but if everyone wasn't afraid to vote for whom they truly wanted in office, I bet they would have a chance against the other two jokers. If they do get votes, maybe the other parties will adopt some of their ideas?? I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. (and being 20 I've only voted twice) If the libertarians can run a good candidate, i will vote for him. What would i be telling Bush if i vote for him again after he stole my constitutional rights. The fact that he doesn't actively grab guns isn't good enough for me when the rest of my rights fall left and right.

To stay somewhat on topic, i think we will win the AW war, but we should all right or call our reps, and Bush, every three months to make sure. I think Bush would sign it, but hopes and will push behind the scenes for it to never leave committee. That is the best move for him vote wise, and lets him do the right thing/what he wants to do.

Me, I am a "small l" libertarian, the closer we get to true libertarianism the less I and others will push their ideas, or care which direction we move, and be likely to vote them in. The further we get, the harder people will push. I think everyone will agree we need to be less authoritarian, and more libertarian.

dog3
April 14, 2003, 12:54 PM
I am one of those folks who is trying his best to
not become more of a cynic than I already am.

That said, I am among the rank and file of those
who feel that my vote doesn't really matter.

With that in mind, I vote libertarian.
Why? Because I strongly feel that there isn't
any difference at all between the two major
parties on any issue that matters. Therefore
I vote libertarian.

Maybe if the libertarians mattered, I would
feel differently. But right now they don't.

All those folks pulling the republican lever
because they want to protect their rights keep
the libertarians from mattering.

Vote libertarian, for a CHANGE.

Bush is anti-gun. Don't kid yourself.

ahenry
April 14, 2003, 02:01 PM
All those folks pulling the republican lever because they want to protect their rights keep the libertarians from mattering. I think you are way over-estimating the number of libertarians out there. Even if you were to add every single republican that would vote libertarian if he didn’t otherwise think his vote would be “wasted”, I would be very shocked if you were even able to come close to winning a national level election. It is perhaps unfortunate, but the fact of the matter is that libertarians are too small a minority to matter even if several tens of thousands of republicans suddenly voted for them. This is why I say that for better or worse, a libertarian candidate will never be a part of the solution to our problems. Its just the way things are.



Bush is anti-gun. Don't kid yourself. I beg to differ. And I could point you to quite a few things that he has done that agree with me.

seeker_two
April 14, 2003, 02:24 PM
Two things that haven't been discussed yet...

ONE: No one has talked about the Republican PRIMARIES. This is the election that a candidate MUST WIN to run for the Presidency. This is a much better opportunity to show disaffectation than voting against the candidate in the general election (i.e. Dole spent nearly ALL his war chest just to win the primary--leaving little to combat the Clinton onslaught of spin & lies). If we make it clear to Bush (& any pro-2A candidates) that he will not get our votes in the primary if he signs AWBII, it may cause a pause & reconsideration of his stance (& bring those pro-2A's into the campaign).

TWO: We're discussing what Bush MAY be planning, not what he has already done. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he actually TAKES ACTION (although the Patriot Act & amnesty for illegals causes ME pause). Three things could occur in this situation, & I'll respond to each accordingly...


PLAN A: Congress kills AWBII before it reaches Bush's desk. RESPONSE: I end up voting for Bush in primaries & general election.
PLAN B: AWBII reaches Bush's desk. Bush flip-flops & doesn't sign into law. RESPONSE: I end up voting for Bush in primaries & general election AND volunteer to campaign for him.
PLAN C: AWBII reaches Bush's desk. Bush signs into law. RESPONSE: I campaign & vote for another pro-2A in the primaries & the general election. If Bush wins primaries, I campaign & vote for a third-party pro-2A candidate. If none available, I don't vote for President BUT vote in as many pro-2A representatives as I can.


That's my plan. What's yours?...

publius
April 14, 2003, 02:24 PM
Regardless of what kind of ingenious three-levels deep politicking he thinks he's doing, I don't appreciate his telling mainstream America that the AWB is a good thing. I think that makes it more acceptable to the mainstream, where previously they might have regarded it as just a left-wing wet dream, not something that America really needed.

Yep.

I have a question for some of you:

On the ballot in your Congressional race you find a gun-grabbing Republican, a Democrat, a Green, and a Libertarian (no such thing as a gun-grabbing one of those).

What do you do?

Boats
April 14, 2003, 03:19 PM
On the ballot in your Congressional race you find a gun-grabbing Republican, a Democrat, a Green, and a Libertarian (no such thing as a gun-grabbing one of those).

What do you do?

Move.

How on Earth can the LP "move the country" when it can't even move itself into a significant win of any office nationwide?

Silver Bullet
April 14, 2003, 03:27 PM
The suggestions about grassroots activities and involvement in the primaries are the best ways to attack this problem, and are in fact the solution to probably every RKBA issue. They both involve the people getting control from the bottom up, which is (or should be) the real power base in this country.

UnknownSailor
April 14, 2003, 03:36 PM
On the libertarian thing, I have come to believe that if all those declared small "L" libertarians out there were to infiltrate their local Republican parties, and try to influence things from within, they might be more successfull. As an example, I give you Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, who is Libertarian in all but name.

As to renewing the AWB, 1994 has shown what a looser gun control is. The typical gun-grabber mouthpieces will make lots of news confrences (Feinstein, Schumer, Brady, et. al), and the media will do their typical half-truth/out right lying reporting, but nothing much will get done.
A renewal bill might make it out of the Senate, but will be DOA in the House. However, I don't plan on slacking off out of any percieved aura of safety that the current make up of the House may offer. I plan on making my opinion known loudly, and often, lest my Congressman loose his mind. Even if deployed.

Silver Bullet
April 14, 2003, 03:43 PM
if all those declared small "L" libertarians out there were to infiltrate their local Republican parties, and try to influence things from within, they might be more successful
Another excellent idea. I like it. In fact, I think that's the way the socialists have gained so much influence in the Democrat Party, the NEA, AARP, and some of the green groups.

Tamara
April 14, 2003, 04:14 PM
"Don't vote libertarian; they don't have a chance of winning!"

From Webster's: Circular Logic: See "Logic, Circular". ;)

Boats
April 14, 2003, 05:59 PM
Whoops! My dictionary already opened to "M," taking your advice I went flipping back to "C." Lo and behold I flipped to "critical mass," definition two: an amount necessary or sufficient to have a significant effect or to achieve a result. I seemed to have stopped right there, the lack of critical mass among the LP not being solely my fault, as they are a long way from "mass" of any description.:D

Lebe
April 14, 2003, 06:52 PM
Most people who are vehemently pro GOP are that way simply to rub it in the face of the Democrats,... largely as a result of the Clinton administration. The same can be said of Democrats who still sing the praises of Clinton,.. and believe it or not, there's still quite a few of those buffoons out there.

It's all a big game to those types. Regardless of who gets put in the driver seat, both factions will thump their chests and rant about how "My guy is better than your guy". It's nothing more than an extension of "My dad can beat up your dad!"

I have no time to play such childish games. I'm looking for a leader which will restore my liberties and insure that my descendants don't exist in a nation which is even more repressive than it is right now.

I don't think that an administration which drafts the "Patriot Act" is moving in such a direction.

Bush is simply the latest elitist, big government SOB to inhabit the White House. Your freedoms mean about as much to him as that mouse that keeps chewing holes in his box of Raisen Bran. Anything he can take away from the people, without suffering political fallout, he'll take. People who support him "regardless" enable him to do exactly THAT.

Lone_Gunman
April 15, 2003, 12:01 AM
Is "raisen" a word?

Justin Moore
April 15, 2003, 12:25 AM
"Don't vote libertarian; they don't have a chance of winning!"

From Webster's: Circular Logic: See "Logic, Circular"

You rock Tamara :)

Boats
April 15, 2003, 01:21 AM
Not to pick nits, but Tamara's phrase is more an example of a truism than of classical circular logic.;)

They're still liars, in the main, for talking about what they will do when they win--as none of them ever has before, and has never shown any signs of doing so, at least in this neck of the woods. Might as well talk about what they are going to do when the aliens land and elevate them to "the level beyond human.":rolleyes:

Justin
April 15, 2003, 02:12 AM
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this thread, I've been busy.
uh, Justin, I didn't say the Republicans never did anything stupid, but you are very confused if you think that the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress are now anywhere near as queasy as they were in the early '90's. I'm quite aware of how much the Repubs outnumber the Dems in the current congress. What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter because there is essentially no difference between the two. Whether it's gun control or social security, the two parties sit around and quibble about how much of it we need, rather than if we actually need it at all. Yes, I realize that's an idealistic statement, and one that's not likely to fly in the current political atmosphere. However, maybe I'd be willing to vote for Republicans if they actually stood up for liberty instead of just giving it lip service. You want me to come back to your party? Make some changes and I'll consider it.
The only way a claim could be made to the contrary is if one was expecting to have them repeal everything right now, and that sort of an expectation could only come from either blinding ignorance of how the system works... I have no delusions about actually regaining a full-blown version of my rights. But I'd like to actually see some Republicans propose things that at least look like they're thinking about maybe taking a baby-step or two in that direction. If the AW ban didn't have a sunset clause in it, do you think that the Republican party would actually even lift a finger to repeal it?
...or a total misunderstanding of the fact that short of armed revolution (which I and a lot of other gun owning Republicans would be more than happy to help put down) there will be no sudden abolition of the system. Why is it that every time there's a thread that touches on people voting for libertarians you go off on this strange tangent where you assume that the libertarians are going to try to foment some form of armed rebellion? The real kicker is that you then always make some sort of statement about how you'd relish shooting liberty-minded folks in such a situation. Typical of a Republican, don't like what somebody else believes in, so that makes it ok to become nothing more than a two-dollar tyrant. :rolleyes:
Gun owners who claim to support the 2A but then throw their votes on minority party candidates such as the anarcho-libertarians who have no chance of winning at the federal level (or even state level around here)... I find it amusing that you think an anarchist would run for political office. I mean, if you're going to fantasize about gunning down people who disagree with you, you should at least have the common courtesy to get their ideologies straight, otherwise you just look kinda silly.
are only supporting the socialist gun grabbers.
What, you mean like the Republicans? Sorry, but I don't buy it. The Republicans are a party who support some of the most hideous experiments in statist oppression. Hmmm...PATRIOT ACT, Total Information Awareness, Bueler, Bueler...
Again, I'll state it, if you want my vote for the Republicans, maybe they should stand up for liberty and the free market.

Thumper
April 15, 2003, 04:36 AM
UnknownSailor is right with his 'Ron Paul' scenario. That's the way to go.

If everyone with a Libertarian bent would have voted for a Libertarian candidate in the last presidential election, the ONLY effect it would have had would have been to put Al Gore in office.

Reality might suck, but it's still reality.

Justin Moore
April 15, 2003, 04:43 AM
If everyone with a Libertarian bent would have voted for a Libertarian candidate in the last presidential election, the ONLY effect it would have had would have been to put Al Gore in office.

And whose fault would it be? I would argue, that its the fault of the statist Republicans for not supporting liberty, not the fault of the voters. The same would apply for the Clinton/Perot scenario. Bush I is the only person to blame there.

WilderBill
April 15, 2003, 05:00 AM
Right now Dubya is so popular, he could say anything and get elcted again.

My guess is that he is testing the waters with this statemant, since it wasn't released as a major policy statement.
I hope he is trying to lull the antis into thinking they don't need to puss AWB II.

Most likely it will die in committee and Dubya won't have to decide what to do next because there won't be another chapter to that story.

IF, however, we see him start leaning on his own party to roll over on us, then we've got major problems!
So far, he has outsmarted just about everybody. I hope he knows who made that tiny difference that put him in office in the first place and doesn't loss his edge by publicly turning on us!

We still need to contact our congress critters. They may be more in touch with reality, anyway. For sure, they are the ones that will decide wheather AWB II ever reaches the Pres's desk.

Marko Kloos
April 15, 2003, 06:40 AM
Right now Dubya is so popular, he could say anything and get elcted again.

His father had an 80%+ approval rating after Gulf War I, and he still lost the election a year later. The high of a won war is a cheap one, it wears off very fast and leaves a hangover. That is something the elder Bush had to learn the hard way, although his flip-flop on taxes certainly didn't help him either.

Boats
April 15, 2003, 07:12 AM
What am I doing up at this hour?

BogBabe
April 15, 2003, 07:18 AM
If everyone with a Libertarian bent would have voted for a Libertarian candidate in the last presidential election, the ONLY effect it would have had would have been to put Al Gore in office.

You are almost certainly right. It just might take that kind of result to shock some sense into the GOP.

I was willing to take that risk.

UnknownSailor
April 15, 2003, 11:04 AM
Another excellent idea. I like it. In fact, I think that's the way the socialists have gained so much influence in the Democrat Party, the NEA, AARP, and some of the green groups.

UnknownSailor is right with his 'Ron Paul' scenario. That's the way to go.

*blink* *blink*

*blush*

Nice to know somebody likes what I post here.

LOL

In my blog travels yesterday, I read several opinions that went pretty much along with mine, in that such a renewal bill might make it out of the Senate, but is DOA in the House.
I agree with those who say that renewal must never make it to President Bush's desk. I am not 100% sure that he wouldn't sign it, so why take the chance, if we don't have to?

dog3
April 15, 2003, 02:04 PM
Hey Ahenry;

I sed: quote:Bush is anti-gun. Don't kid yourself.

U sed: I beg to differ. And I could point you to quite a few things that he has done that agree with me.

I'm all ears, (or eyes, or whatever).

I stand by it. Anxiously awaiting rebuttal.

The current Bush standing by Bush speaks
for it's self. Gimme yours.

Also, on the first point. I'll buy it if we are
talking true libertarians. I guess the forum
defines same as (L)ibertarians. Well, I don't
think I am a true libertarians, but I sure as heck
ain't a Demican, or is that Repulicrat, nor
do I support the Empire.

I am probably best described as a Jeffersonian Democrat.

All that aside. Pulling the libertarian handle
takes votes AWAY from the power stucture.
Yes, you are right. No libertarian will win
a national election. That isn't the point. The point is, that more folks pulling the handle will
make the "fixers" wonder what in the heck
is going wrong.

Yes, I voted for Ed Clark in the first presidential election I was able to
participate in. I also voted for "the madman"
against Clinton/Bush, because Bush betrayed
the entire country with his assault weapons ban.

bad=enemy

Ian
April 15, 2003, 04:04 PM
At the absolute best, Bush is neutral on guns. If he were actually pro-gun-rights, he would have taken steps towards repealing the gun laws already on the books. At the very least he would have expressed his disapproval of those laws. If he's neutral, he would simply leave the gun issue alone. Instead, he has explicitly expressed his intention to enhance the gun laws already on the books.

Now, the two theories that have been put forth on why he did this are:

1) He is cleverly using reverse psychology to gain support so that he can support a small and politically-way-incorrect minority consisting of "assault weapon" owners.

2) He is unconcerned with anyone's rights, and is simply trying to appease the vocal masses by alienating a demonized minority of perceived violent whackos and grab more government power in the process.

Which seems more likely? Keep in mind that he is a career politician.

wQuay
April 15, 2003, 06:33 PM
This is politics, not first and goal at the one yard line. Some deception is required to kill the AWB while at the same time not handing a cost-free club to the left wing press and politicians to beat Bush over the head with in front of the soccer moms.

Boats is right. We can trust Bush, our liberties are in good hands. Go back to sleep, people.

Hard Charger
April 15, 2003, 08:12 PM
FWIW.

With regard to finding a republican sponsor of a renewal bill. There were 38 republicans that voted FOR the ban in 1994.

There were 77 democrats that voted AGAINST it.

I watched it on C-SPAN. It was a fine example of how our system should work. Instead of the issue being split by party, there were 4 factions in the debate. Republicans for, republicans against. Democrats for, democrats against.

Even though we lost, I was impressed with the situation.

It is American gun owners fault that the bill got passed to begin with. It will be our fault if it gets renewed.

When a few of us started an effort to get people to contact their politicians, our requests fell on deaf ears. Threads on boards got very few replies or indications of cooperation. Nobody seemed to worry about it.

It may be that President Bush's statement has energized the gun owning community in a way that was impossible by any other means.

At least now, people are making their wishes known and are willing to do something about it. I guess the loss of the veto so many people seemed to count on, served as a wake up call.

Silver Bullet
April 15, 2003, 08:22 PM
Thanks for the link. Of particular interest was this item:

1/26/03: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduces bill to repeal 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban

I'm tellin' ya, Ron Paul is da man !

Hard Charger
April 15, 2003, 08:33 PM
I made the remark on another board that every day, 534 politicians in Washington DC do everything they can to rob us of our freedoms.

Ron Paul is the only one who doesn't.

Pendragon
April 15, 2003, 09:02 PM
Wow.

Lots of idealism, serious shotrage of realism.


Bush just told congress where the fight has to be.

If he left congress with the impression that he would veto the law, there are some - perhaps just enough that would take a weasel pass and roll over for a political favor.

Sometimes representatives need to vote one way or another for expediency. Deals are made and people are allowed to vote against things that are going to pass anyway - that way people can still sit well with the dairy advocacy group or whatever.

Bush is sending a clear message that it is up to congress to stop this thing. There is no wiggle room and the House cannot trade AWB passage for political capital in another area with the assumption that Bush will veto it.

The death of the AWB is critical to the health of the Republican party and both GW and Congress know this.

It is much worse for Bush to veto the AWB ban because a lot of people say he does not have a mandate and for him to veteo something passed by the most representative body of congress would be politically...not good.

I actually think this message makes it more likely that the AWB will die.

Bush is stealing a page from Clinton - he is co-opting the lefts agenda and taking a lot of their power with it. The left is going to have a lot of trouble getting traction on this issue with Bush saying he will renew it. They like to use Bush as a touchstone for all that is wrong with right wing America and this is an effective dodge.

I wonder if Boats has not been reading my mind because almost everything I wanted to post, he already said.

Including: I think the LP is worse than worthless. The people who run it are crooks who do not care about winning - they care about getting contributions and matching funds. They are like the "Black Leaders" who keep everyone down and tell them how much they need them.

Nightcrawler
April 15, 2003, 09:32 PM
Something from my psychology textbook.

If a minority is united, vocal, and consistent in delivering a simple message, and STAY consistent over time, often the majority will often begin to adopt the policies and ideas of the minority.

The book used the platform of the 1901 Socialist Party, and how we ended up with minimum wage laws, social security, etc.

If THEY can do it, surely WE can?

Minute_Of_Torso
April 15, 2003, 09:51 PM
We can trust Bush? Our liberties are in good hands?

Golly, I should bend down and lick the fingers of the king who allows me to keep a portion of my paycheck and then thank him for allowing me to have that which he deems necessary.

Let's see:

1. Largest increase in federal government in recent, if not entire, US history. Not to mention a reorganization which has manifested itself in more strict control of citizens and almost complete disregard for border security (real border security, I'm not talking about the extra officials at the "formal" border crossings).
2. Huge increase in federal spending.
3. Largest step towards total surveillance of the general populace.
4. Sweeping police powers (short-term, or so they said until the Republicans have recently decided to try for an extension of the new federal police powers to "fight terrorism"). See Patriot Act and Patriot Act II.
5. Increasing militarization of local law enforcement (with federal money, of course).

Where have I seen or heard of these things before . . . .oh, yeah - in every fledgling police state in history.


I prefer to distrust any elected official. I used to mostly distrust the liberal democrat, now I distrust the republicans far more because most people actually believe that they have "our bests interests in mind" and that they are actually conservative.

I agree, though, that we don't have to worry about Bush. If I recall, that grand old document starts, "We the People . . . "

gun-fucious
April 15, 2003, 10:18 PM
consider the number of grass roots MMMommies that are registered to vote.

now consider the number of gun owners that are not registered to vote.

ahenry
April 16, 2003, 12:56 AM
I asked you to show me actions that Bush has taken that indicate he is anti-gun, since you refuse to do so I am not going to waste my time pointing you to the myriad of reasons I have that indicate to me that Bush is actually pro-gun. I will leave you with just one, he signed the Texas Concealed Carry License.

Tamara
April 16, 2003, 01:03 AM
I asked you to show me actions that Bush has taken that indicate he is anti-gun

Repeated vocal support of the AW ban.
Support on his campaign platform of enlarging the AW ban.

Sure, Bush supports your right to own a .38 snubbie (if you jump through all those Texian hoops for a CCW), but a Militia Rifle? Not a chance, bro!

ahenry
April 16, 2003, 01:26 AM
Sorry Tamara. I specifically asked for actions. For instance, if we were discussion George H. Bush, I’d agree that based on both words and actions, we might not have much of a friend. Given that George W. Bush is a politician and everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth has to be filtered through a political road map, looking at actions becomes important. What do his actions say? Its a simple question.

Tamara
April 16, 2003, 01:36 AM
Okay, other than signing the (relatively lame compared to most other states) Texas CCW law, what do his actions say? ;)

(Looking for actions from a politician is like looking for flying from a fish: it happens, but it ain't the norm. ;) )

ahenry
April 16, 2003, 02:13 AM
Okay, other than signing the (relatively lame compared to most other states) Texas CCW law, what do his actions say? Now I could swear you and I have had this exact same conversation back on TFL...

Since I don’t actually think you are interested (since I do believe we discussed this once before), I’ll just say his actions (lame or not, he just gets to sign the bills not write them) suggest he is more pro than any president we have had in more than our lifetimes (and probably yours and mine combined).

I’ve shown you hard factual actions that indicate I might know what I’m talking about. I’m still waiting for you to show me actions that he has done that show you do. ;)

Pendragon
April 16, 2003, 03:50 AM
Newsflash:

Governors do not pass legislation.

If the CCW bill was lame, that can hardly be pinned on him. From what I understand, it was an improvement and allowed more people to carry.

Sad to say, there are people here who would call him an anti gun politicial for not grandstanding and refusing to sign the law because it was too restrictive, etc.

Get back on your meds.:rolleyes:

The fact is, other than this special little corner of the world, the majority of people have some degree of fear associated with guns. And with drugs, and lots of other things that the smartest citizens rightly regard as matters of liberty.

Those who espouse unappologetic 2ndA absolutism are a tiny minority of the population and you scare the bejesus out of everyone else. That you are right is of almost no consequence. The power structure would be happy to beat you down with the approval of a lot of people who consider themselves "good Americans".

The Antis love to talk about a world without guns - just like we love to talk about a world without gunlaws. Both are 100% impossible. Just like a ruling Libertarian Party.

If you want a real libertarian government, you are delusional if you think it can even happen in your lifetime. You need to take over the schools, the water districts, the newspapers, the medical establishment and have a few billionaires on your side. Even then, you will have to undo 100 years of socialist brainwashing and come up with something better than "freedom is messy, learn to love it".

I saw some idiots on the news protesting that their taxes were too low and could sombody please raise them (!!!!!)

Our country is fat and prosperous and we generally prefer the luxurious fun life to the "animating contest of freedom". Most people just want to get laid, drive a cool car, wear cool clothes and play video games.

Yes, a total rollback of the AWB, and all other federal gun laws would compell most of us to start a new religion with GW as the central object of worship, but it just aint going to happen. It would freak everyone out, it would throw the leftist back into power so fast, it would make your head spin.

The best we could ever do in our lifetime would be to get a Roe v Wade style watershed ruling from the SC.

Oh - but to do that, we need to actually get a majority of judges on the SC that believe in the 2ndA. I have not kept track of all of them, but from what I have seen, GW tries to appoint "strict constructionists" (more or less, mostly more) and the dems are positively sacrificing their political lives to try and stop the appointments in a way that is unprecidented.

They know that if we get a solid majority of people who think the Constitution says what it means, they are done. Game over.

If you think the Democrats and the Republicans are the same, you are blind. Look at the courts, look at the judges - the courts are where most of our rights are won and lost ultimately.

Regardless of how far short of your ideal GW falls, he is trying to appoint judges that are a lot more sympathetic to your views than any Democrat will ever dream of doing. So if you go off on your little altruistic LP kick, you are not just allowing 4 years of "the same thing", you are opening the gates for more wacked out liberal communist judges to get on the bench and evacuate their vicera all over the Constitution.

WonderNine
April 16, 2003, 04:01 AM
It is much worse for Bush to veto the AWB ban because a lot of people say he does not have a mandate and for him to veteo something passed by the most representative body of congress would be politically...not good.

Whatever happened to "checks and balances".

I guess that all disapeared with the "end of gridlock" and "bipartisanship" rhetoric of the past 15 odd years.....

Pendragon
April 16, 2003, 04:30 AM
This is about checks and ballances.

From a political stand point, the House is the body that is most "democratic" and is the closest thing to direct representation.

Many people see GW as not having a "mandate" due to the Florida fiasco. ("Hail to the Thief", "President Select", etc)

This AWB is going to be killed by Republicans, but if the House passes the renewal, and GW vetoes it, it will not matter - you will not have been let down by GW, you will be let down by everyone.

The antis will have an absolute pic-nic over this. The parade of victims and human debris will be without equal - because if it is renewed, it will be RIGHT before the presidential election and the left has NO ISSUE right now.

Politically, GW knows the score, and he is telling Republicans that they have to kill this in the House - they absolutely have to if they want it dead.

GW has almost nothing to do with it passing or not - if it does pass the House, then the Republicans might as well just hand everything back to the Democrats.

If you think they do not know this, you are insane. They know why GW won - or more, why Gore lost and they know why we cleaned house in 94 and they know what the score is for people who were pro gun - pro gun people get elected. Anti gun people go home and get a real job.

Both parties are made up of factions of groups that are loyal to a single issue - the Democrats way more than the Republicans, but still, there are people who are Republicans only because they percieve the Repubs as for lower taxes, pro business, etc. Not everyone is all "rah rah! guns for all!" - some of them just nervously tolerate the gun people because it means they get their issue heard. It depends on the area of the country and how the issue happens to be framed at the moment and if any kids got shot this week, etc.

If Bush takes a hardline on guns - one way or the other, it does not help him - it only hurts him. By playing the center, he avoids energizing the MMM. He avoids having about a million Op-Ed pieces written by hand wringing mommies who fear there will be more machineguns in little tommys school - and isn't Bush a horrible war monger who wants everyone killed, etc.

Watch what he does, ignore most of what he says. Look at the heat Ashcroft takes over his stance on guns. He is constantly painted to be a total lunatic for his position on guns (he may be a lunatic, but for other reasons).

Do you really think that a President who was at all Anti would appoint Ashcroft or Condi Rice?

This is politics in America in the 21st Century. At least 20% of the country is completely incapable of handling any more freedom than they got right now, and twice that many get scared REAL easy.

If you want the AWB to die, write your congress person. Give GW a break in the mean time.

dog3
April 16, 2003, 07:59 AM
Ahenry,

Don't get so testy man. I made a flat statement
that Bush is anti-gun, you said you disagree
and offered to show why. I asked you to
go ahead and do that thing. I never said
I go point and counterpoint as to why I feel
Bush is anti.

As to the CCW issue. The *ONLY* thing CCW
is, in my book. Is the state granting permission
to exercise a right that they have no moral
control over in the first place.

A politician that is pro CCW is not necessarily
pro-gun. They are however, certainly and
demonstratably pro gun control, because
that is what ccw really is.

CCW *IS* gun control.

tyme
April 16, 2003, 08:48 AM
Totally agree with Pendragon.

(Pendragon) This is politics in America in the 21st Century. At least 20% of the country is completely incapable of handling any more freedom than they got right now, and twice that many get scared REAL easy.

I'd extend that to say that at least 20% of the country is completely incapable of handling the freedom it already has.

Al in Md
April 16, 2003, 05:20 PM
I think that as things now stand the AWB has little chance to reach GWB's desk. However it will only take another Coumbine or Beltway style shooting incident to turn the whole situation against us. GWB missed a golden opportunity to curry favor with the gun rights community when his administration came out in opposition of the Armed Airlines Pilots Bills. Even the anti's had little heartburn over that issue. What was he thinking? Al

Pendragon
April 16, 2003, 05:56 PM
Guns in cockpits is a hard sell even after 9/11.

Much of the public believes that a gun can "just go off" and that a hole in the plane will suck everyone out :rolleyes:

Yes, it makes sense to us, but you cannot make it to the 20 yard line without passing the 50th, 40th then the 30th.

In political terms, that goal was not worth the cost at that time, and in that environment.

We simply cannot have the Pollyanna view that says to be "on our side", you have to come out with a hard line 2ndA absolutist position on ever issue involving guns. You have to work strategically and behind the scenes and pick battles that you can actually win and survive to win more battles.

This notion of the politician who never backs down, who fights for guns at every turn regardless of the cost - they do not exist, mostly because those kinds of people are not capable of getting elected dog catcher let alone President. Ron Paul perhaps being one of the very very few exceptions in the last 50 years. Chalk that up to convergence of unlikely conditions - regardless, it is nothing approaching a trend.

If you want sweeping victory, it will only come from the USSC, and the only person who has a prayer of electing the right kind of jurists is GW. That is an undenyable fact.

Glock Glockler
April 16, 2003, 07:44 PM
Aaron,

Do you believe that words are not, to a certain extent, actions? Do his words not have repurcussions?

If he really is pro-gun, why the hell bring up the issue in the first place, what purpose does it serve? The only reason I can see for this is that he might be trying to cozy up to socialist soccer moms and crunchie granola heads who're peeved at him for the war. Why was he so fiercly opposed to armed pilots?

He could have simply not said anything, both with the AW ban and with the pilot issue, and he wouldn't be actively working against RKBA reedom. If he really supported the hell out of RKBA, he could just say that it's garbage and that he'd veto it. Do you think Congress could override his veto?

He won't do that because he's afraid of the political effects from doing so, but that wouldn't bother someone who really believed in the issue.

He's, like all politicians, worried about his image.

It's all about votes after all.

Waitone
April 16, 2003, 09:43 PM
After my father died I became executor of his estate. One of the task for which I paid an attorney's services was to place a notice to creditor . . . . . . guess where the ad was placed. In the smallest, most inconsequential periodical in the city. Why? Because the law required notice to creditors. Didn't say anything about how effective the notice had to be.

Shift to this story. If Bush was making a policy statement and was interested in making points with major blocs of voters, he could have had front page coverage in a dozen national papers and top of the hour coverage in electronic media. He didn't. He used a back wood periodical and a no name reporter.

Conclusion? He knows the AWB won't make it past the House. So he can throw a bone to the anti-2's AT NO REAL COST TO HIS base. Participants on the THR and other boards tend to being principaled individuals, the anthesis of a politician.

Bush is acting like a politican now. Forget the memories of principaled foreign leadership. It ain't gonna happen stateside.

Hard Charger
April 16, 2003, 09:56 PM
Personally, I think the biggest consideration behind anything Bush does or says it the fact that he is very inarticulate. He can do well when reading a speech from a teleprompter, and after may hours of practice. That one today was good.

But on the fly, Bush leaves a lot to be desired. Prior to the Gulf War, when pressured about going into Iraq, he slipped and said "this is the man that tried to kill my dad". His followers get offended when someone tries to imply revenge was the motive for action in Iraq.

So any heated subject, arming pilots, renewing the ban, vetoing an education bill, etc., will be approached from that viewpoint; what is easiest to explain.

When Ted Kennedy sent an education bill loaded with pork and devoid of what Bush wanted to do, Bush signed it. It was easier to sign it than to explain to a screaming liberal media why he vetoed it.

It will be the same with any hot topic. By announcing support of the ban, he doesn't get grilled every time he takes questions. With 80+% of the media being liberal, it is better for him to take the path of least harassment.

Imagine President Bush trying to explain during a debate in 2004 why he opposed the ban. Now, the question won't even come up.

This is a president that gets praised by conservatives for signing liberal sponsored legislation in order to "take the issue away from the democrats". HUH!? WTH.

So by taking the democrats side on an issue, he takes it away from them. A tactic that someone who is "oratorically challenged" needs to use frequently.

That is what we get for hooking our wagon to a big dud. What is with the republican party? Dole in 96 Bush in 2000.

ahenry
April 16, 2003, 11:36 PM
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be testy.

The *ONLY* thing CCW is, in my book. Is the state granting permission to exercise a right that they have no moral control over in the first place. I agree. However, once liberty is lost it can only be regained through slow and incremental steps or violent revolution. I’ll take the incremental approach over the bloody one any day.

ahenry
April 16, 2003, 11:44 PM
Aw come on GG, you know as well as I do that politicians have to have their speech filtered.

If he really is pro-gun, why the hell bring up the issue in the first place, what purpose does it serve? I will tell you exactly what it does. It takes the wind out of the sails of the other side. It places congressional republicans on notice that they cannot try and curry political favor with those across the aisle by voting for this, the onus for its end is on them, which is where it should be. The president is a last place to stop to law, not the first place. It puts voters on notice that they need to put the right congress types in office, which they should know anyway but apparently do not. This last aspect also serves to provide Bush with a stronger majority, which will allow him to more easily put in good judges and pass worthwhile bills (tax issues for instance).

If he really supported the hell out of RKBA I didn’t say that. I said he is more supportive of the second amendment than any president we have had in many, many years.

Tamara
April 16, 2003, 11:46 PM
So in other words, he says he supports the assault weapons ban, but he doesn't really. I get it.

There's a word for people who say things that aren't true; it'll come to me in a minute... ;)

ahenry
April 17, 2003, 12:02 AM
I know the word you’re looking for, its called a lawyer. Oops, no, that would be politician. Crap, no you must mean a guy on a date. ;)

Look, I realize we all want a president that talks just like us and says what he means and means what he says, however it ain’t gonna happen in present day America. Until such a candidate comes along, I’ll continue to enjoy whatever little victories I can and continue to go beyond the “read my lips” crap that hasn’t happened in politics since before the turn of the last century. I suppose it is your prerogative to bury your head in the sand and bemoan the fact that he is a politician but until I see you running for office the complaint isn’t going to hold much water. Shoot, I bet you’d get at least the membership of THR to vote for you. You'd get mine.

Thumper
April 17, 2003, 12:07 AM
I will tell you exactly what it does. It takes the wind out of the sails of the other side. It places congressional republicans on notice that they cannot try and curry political favor with those across the aisle by voting for this, the onus for its end is on them, which is where it should be.

Whether or not it was the Prez's intention, what ahenry said is undeniably true...and isn't that good for our cause?

WonderNine
April 17, 2003, 01:25 AM
So in other words, he says he supports the assault weapons ban, but he doesn't really. I get it.

There's a word for people who say things that aren't true; it'll come to me in a minute...

Unfortunately, there's alot of delusional people out there who are willing to support Bush no matter what he does. They want to keep believing the "Bush is a master politician" B.S. Rush Limbaugh keeps pushing on them.

Whatever happened to "When Bush says something, he means it."

What if the AWB extension passes by some miracle and then Bush will be forced to live up to his words.

What will you think of your hero then, compassionate conservatives?

Thumper
April 17, 2003, 01:39 AM
What if the AWB extension passes by some miracle and then Bush will be forced to live up to his words.

By some miracle? Don't let the optimism of some of these boards fool you.

I EXPECT it to pass...if you aren't writing at least one hard copy letter a week to your congresscritters, you're part of the problem.

Let's take responsibility for this one, folks.

Justin
April 17, 2003, 02:05 AM
On the one hand I can understand those claiming that Bush is just using a bit of subterfuge to pay lip service to the left on this issue.

On the other, words and actions mean things. Bush has said that he would support an extension on the ban. He supported the PATRIOT ACT, Total Information Awareness, and getting a DNA sample of every person arrested, nevermind whether or not you were convicted. Bush has not been very good for civil liberties.

For those of you who hear him say he will support a renewal of the ban, yet claim that he does not, I have a question:

How is it that you are coming to this conclusion? What form of clairvoyant insight do you have that the rest of us Doubting Thomases lack that makes you so sure?

Divining rod?
Crystal Ball?
Chicken Bones?
Ouija Board?
Magic 8 Ball?

I hope you'll forgive me if refusing to have blind faith in a politician is bad form.

Pendragon
April 17, 2003, 03:44 AM
I have no doubt that he will sign it if it passes.

I dont think any of us are claiming that he will not.

I personally think that he is not that concerned with the gun issue either way - I think he considers it mostly noise in the light of recent events.

That said, I think he is giving those who oppose it a very clear line in the sand: you dont want the AWB, dont let it get to my desk.

Things are slowly swinging our way - they are not our way yet, but they are already less their way.

We will not make major headway with Bush - the best we can hope for is that he will get his jurists seated and then we can see more change, longer.

Baby steps - he is not great contributer to our cause, but I do not see him as going out of his way to hurt us either. Our challenge will be to help him help us as it were.

This is not an optimal situation, but it is the one we got, and we need to deal with reality.

In reality, he is better than Clinton, and better than his dad - we will see what happens the next couple years.

I guarantee you he is worlds better than anyone the Democrats will try to field.

WonderNine
April 17, 2003, 03:59 AM
Jebus Crisp Pendragon, I think you've swallowed this whole right wing line hook line and sinker. G.W. signed campaign finance reform under overwhemling pressure from his party not to do so right? This is complete bollocks that you're spewing. He's not indifferent to AWB renewel in order to get his judges appointed. He knows very well that won't make a difference anyways. Honestly I believe he is for the renewal of the AWB.

Let me ask you, when have you ever seen Bush with a firearm other than a shotgun?

WonderNine
April 17, 2003, 04:07 AM
Oh, I'm sorry, I have seen that you do in fact believe that shrubby will in fact renew the AWB. Never mind.

dog3
April 17, 2003, 07:15 AM
AHenry;

No worries.

" I agree. However, once liberty is lost it can only be regained through slow and incremental steps or violent revolution. I�ll take the incremental approach over the bloody one any day."


Agreed indeed.

Thumper
April 17, 2003, 07:26 AM
Oh, I'm sorry, I have seen that you do in fact believe that shrubby will in fact renew the AWB.

That who will renew the AWB?

Blackhawk's right...some here need to brush up on their U.S. Government studies.

Maybe some Schoolhouse Rock will help.

Sing after me...

"I'm just a Bill, I am only a Bill, and I'm sittin' here on capitol hill..."

Justin Moore
April 17, 2003, 06:55 PM
On the other, words and actions mean things. Bush has said that he would support an extension on the ban. He supported the PATRIOT ACT, Total Information Awareness, and getting a DNA sample of every person arrested, nevermind whether or not you were convicted. Bush has not been very good for civil liberties.

You left out:

The Farm Bill
Support for "Project SAFE Neighborhoods"

Where do they come up with these Orwellian titles like "Project SAFE Neighborhoods" and "The PATRIOT Act" anyway? :cuss:

Glock Glockler
April 17, 2003, 07:12 PM
Aaron,

If he simply said nothing, all of what you said would happen. Congress would have to deal with on their own just like they did with the first round of the campaign finance BS (which got reinvigorated due to Enron).

Also, if he said nothing, the issue would be that much less on people's minds, including the Ds, who might have let it slide quietly under the radar.

Gun control is on the ropes as an issue, the Ds know that it has cost them too much, so they are letting it lay low for the tme being. This is not the Clinton Administration, where they had the momentum in their direction. 911 served as a great wake-up call, as well as the mounting tide of empirical data against their nonsense.

Also, you are incorrect in that this will motivate voters to elect the right people cause that election already happened. It is the current crop of Congresscheisse that will determine if it dies. It is it reinstated by the new batch, there will already be a period of a few months with it effectively null, and inertia says that it's a lot harder to pass something not in effect than to repass something.

If Bush just shut his mouth we'd all be better off.

I also don't see why he is necessarily pro-RKBA, at all? So he signed a CCW bill in Texas, but was it politically feasable for him to do so?

Justin also summed up a fraction of the anti-freedom things he's done, so why does he believe in freedom on the gun issue?

I also don't see how tax cuts are such a great thing when combined with the out of control spending he's been doing. If you want to cut taxes, no arguement from me, but let's cut spending as well. You're familiar with deficit spending and the effects that the compound interest on that debt will have.

Boats
April 17, 2003, 08:25 PM
You honestly believe that the Bradys or certain Democratic presidential candidates are going to keep quiet if President Bush does? That whole side of the fence thrives on the stampede that their fearmongering creates amongst the sheeple.

I'll take two of whatever you're having.:D

Boats
April 17, 2003, 08:39 PM
How is it that you are coming to this conclusion? What form of clairvoyant insight do you have that the rest of us Doubting Thomases lack that makes you so sure?

Divining rod?
Crystal Ball?
Chicken Bones?
Ouija Board?
Magic 8 Ball?

I hope you'll forgive me if refusing to have blind faith in a politician is bad form.

Divining Rod? Check.
Crystal Ball? Check.
Chicken Bones? By the bucket.
Ouija Board? Summoning Leonidas.
Magic 8 Ball? That piece of plastic crud is in the shop for frame "upgrade.":D

Nah. I am just a sneaky mofo doing some triangulating. To figure out a politician, you have to think like one, i.e., you have to have one eye on the polls and one eye on re-election and a whole host of people in your political spectrum playing the conciliator or the hammer as required. You look at how to best defuse the AWB against your re-election chances and you see where Pendragon and me are coming from. We know that we are members of a small and noisy minority, who if we had our druthers, would deregulate the keeping and bearing of all weapons. However we also acknowledge that that is not the world we live in. So we deal with the world as it is rather than rail against its "injustices."

If we can't get to where we want by cajoling or force, we have to get there incrementally using deception if we have to.

By the rules some play by here, I should ditch the cammo on my next deer hunt and carry a boombox with a tape loop saying "Look out Mr. Buck, I am coming for you with a scoped .308 Remington Model 700. You better watch out, for I intend to put you into my freezer!" Heck, Elmer Fudd tells it like it is too. Maybe he's a Libertarian?:evil:

You think I'd have anything to tag on that hunt? Same principle here. You want to put some spine into the people who really need to kill the AWB, announce that they cannot depend on you to knife it and take all of the heat nationally. Such a tactic will embolden the House Republicans while at the same time offer scant assistance to the ambitions of the antis.

It ain't blind faith, it's graduate level politics contrasted against tactics akin to those displayed before the local city council on CCTV where some plainspeakin' idjits at times seem to threaten people's lives because a sewer upgrade might result in an increased water/sewer assessment.:what:

[edited for a misspelling]

Ian
April 17, 2003, 09:06 PM
While I really hope you're right, I'm still going to be buying 10 more AR mags next month.

Pendragon
April 18, 2003, 04:57 AM
ROFLMAO: Boombox.

I swear we share the same brain.

publius
April 18, 2003, 06:25 AM
I think Congress will try to slip passage by in the middle of the night or some such thing, just like they do when they raise their pay. But they might decide to be really sneaky, and kill the AWB during the broad light of day, only to stick the pieces of it back into various bills that "have to pass." A bit goes in the farm boondoggle, at bit goes in the forest boondoggle, some in the transportation boondoggle, some in the next fatherland security boondoggle, etc.

Just thinking like a politician here...what would result in the least political damage with the most power gained by government? Well, we sell the folks on the idea that a series of tactical retreats is the path to victory, we manipulate heck out of everyone, then we dissolve the issue in a huge pool of money so no one can find it any more, then we do what we want.

hops
April 18, 2003, 01:42 PM
Luv the boom-box analogy! I agree with Boats' views on this thread.

DFBonnett
April 18, 2003, 03:10 PM
USA: "In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban "

"Surprise"? Not hardly. Gun owners had better learn that they can count on one thing and one thing only, being sold out.

Pendragon
April 18, 2003, 03:59 PM
I think Congress will try to slip passage by in the middle of the night or some such thing,

Well, personally, I do not get uptight about congressional pay raises.

the thing about the raises is that pretty much all the congress people want more money, and they realize it is controversial - so they just do it.

The AWB is extremely divisive and if one side tried to do their deed under cover of darkness, the other side would not stand for it and would make much political hay over it.

This will definately become a big issue at some point but we want it off the radar as long as possbile so they cant come up with pics of Congressman Buck Hunter in a tutu with a man whore. Several of the votes for the original AWB were obtained in pretty much that way.

Tom B
April 18, 2003, 07:44 PM
Hmmm...so it is ok if Bush votes anti-second amendment as long as he tells us so in advance? We can live with that you say? NOT! Look how close Bush came to losing to the idiot Gore last time and Bush had no "baggage". Now suppose the Dems smarten up enough to run a conservative Dem such as a Zell Miller. Now Bush has lost several southern states from the get go. Does Bush believe that he will make up for lost RKBA voters with the moderates that he will gain? Thats about as smart as the Repubs letting everyone from Mexico enter this country (as they have been doing) and thinking about all those votes they will be gaining. DUH! They won't be voting for YOU Shrub! Read this one thread and look at Bush's popularity fading. And this from mostly right wingers to the umpteen power right after the war has been won. Yes he is high in the polls presently but polls change day to day. Just ask Daddy.:neener:

Glock Glockler
April 19, 2003, 12:47 AM
You honestly believe that the Bradys or certain Democratic presidential candidates are going to keep quiet if President Bush does? That whole side of the fence thrives on the stampede that their fearmongering creates amongst the sheeple

Why aren't they doing it now? Why not make the ban permanent right now instead of waiting before the election?

People are starting to wake up to the notion of gun control being a sham, and the Ds know that it has been costing them serious votes, so I don't think they're going to make a big stink about it before the election, especially if they're struggling to retake ground in the legislature, as they need to sway as many swing voters who might be otherwise inclined to vote R.

When you percieve them to be more powerful and threatening then they are, you actually make them more powerful.

I'm tired of being on the defensive, I say 'let them take the defensive'.

Justin
April 19, 2003, 01:59 AM
Boats, I really, really hope you're right. I think that our opposing views on this topic aren't so much Republican vs. libertarian as they are Optimist vs. Cynic. Gun owners are a political minority, one that's loud and obnoxious. I have no doubt that Dubya would dump us if he figured it would be in exchange for XYZ voting block that just happens to be a lot less confrontational.

I happen to agree with you about the incrementalism thing. That's how we got to the sad state of affairs we're in today, and it's the most viable solution for getting our rights back.

Like the poster in Mulder's office says, "I want to believe."

LiquidTension
April 19, 2003, 03:06 AM
I have that poster on my wall, too :D

Boats
April 19, 2003, 08:10 AM
Why aren't they doing it now? Why not make the ban permanent right now instead of waiting before the election?

It's too early for the gun controlers to become drama queens over the AWB. Since when have they ever cared if they were powerful or correct? The timing of this, if you were the floor leader of the losing side, has to be calculated for maximum political damage to your opponents. Therefore, I fully expect the battle over the AWB to happen like this from the Democratic perspective:

Introduce/push for a renewal/extension later this session with expanded definitions, and all of the bells and whistles your anti friends want, and have it get killed as noisily as possible.

Then reintroduce the current AWB for renewal in the Senate as early as possible in the 2004 Congressional session and push for a late spring/early summer Senate vote, ahead of the National Conventions. It may pass the Senate if there aren't any changes. If I win one chamber I have the leverage to have the DLC chair or the presidential nominee (if he is willing) or vp nominee hammer away in the press that all it would take from this point to "ensure a safer America for all time," (it's for the children), is for GWB to show some domestic leadership in the House. If it passes, GWB has pledged to sign it. If it fails, I can energize my base with the "betrayal."

In any event, the time is not right for the antis to join the battle. By this same token, the Republicans are not going to take any affirmative steps to kill the AWB early because that tactic is high cost/low profit compared to letting it die a natural death for the lack of a bill anyone can live with.

If you enjoyed reading about "USA: "In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban "" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!