[Telperion]

http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03043003.tlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

Excerpts:

Q: Another thing, on another subject. The NRA, Charleton Heston has left. Many are wondering about a statement that was said that the assault weapons ban will not continue once it expires. The administration has said something different. How is this meshing with a group that is friend to the Bush administration?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the administration is already on record about the assault weapon ban. The President has said that he supports the current assault weapons ban, and he would support the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban.

Q: So the NRA is just out in left field then?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President approaches every issue on the merits of the issue. Sometimes he agrees with different people on different issues, but I think when it comes to virtually all the issues that have been presented, the President has strong agreement with the National Rifle Association. The President's position on the current assault weapons ban is known.

:cuss:

[Sam Adams]

The President has said that he supports the current assault weapons ban, and he would support the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban.

OK, on its face this statement really sucks. However, we need to consider that Bush and his political people are not stupid - I think that a bit of strategery is involved here. Let's look at a likely scenario:

The Dems propose a host of really radical additions to the current unconstitutional law. This could kill the bill in the House, and would get the proponents labeled as anti-gun zealots. Alternatively, if it passed and landed on Bush's desk, he could veto it and truthfully say that he backed the current law and not something so draconian. Again, the proponents get the anti-gun zealot label. We win either way.

If, alternatively, GWB signs whatever comes out of the Crapitol, then he's going to have a harder time winning re-election. If he does win, he'll have fewer Congresscritters on his side, as close races will swing to the other side due to committed gun owners staying home. This would be utter disaster - we'd be saddled with a newer, draconian law, Bush would owe us nothing and the only people holding back the really radical Dims in Congreess will be severely weakened.

Bush had better be careful - if, that is, he wants to be re-elected.

[Byron Quick]

The Democrats persist in underestimating George Bush. It makes them feel superior to think he is stupid. Then they're left wondering what happened when he hands them their political heads...once again.

President Bush WILL sign the bill IF it gets to his desk in the same form as is law today.

The reporters are not asking the right questions. They might get a different answer if they ask,"Will the president use his influence to get Republican congressmen to support this bill?"

After watching George Bush, I believe he is much more subtle than he is given credit for being. He can have his cake and eat it, too in this matter.

"Well, I would have signed it if it had ever gotten out of committee and passed the House and Senate."

[OF]

I have to agree. Bush has shown himself to be far more sneaky than the Dems understand. As far as I can see, he's pretty much managed to shut them down at every turn. They are like a party adrift at this point. I don't know why they are even bothering with the Democratic primary. I mean, what's the point?

This tack keeps the soccer moms at bay, prevents the gun-grabbing dems from getting a foothold, keeps the POTUS free from attack and he is unlikely ever to have to sign anything. I hope he's right, and it doesn't hit his desk. I believe he is gambling on that. You'd have to be some kind of idiot to piss off the gun owners after the damage we've done to our opponents in the last two elections.

- Gabe

[Augustwest]

The current administration is on record as saying the President supports the AWB, a bill which aimed to deprive Americans of the very types of guns Amendment II was written to protect.

You can call it sneaky, or politically shrewd, or pour any number of other flavors of Koolaid, but that won't change the fact that the Bush Administration has now repeatedly and publicly stated that it supports the abrogation of Americans' rights.

I don't understand how that doesn't make everyone at THR very worried about the direction we're heading in.

[GregoryTech]

The current administration is on record as saying the President supports the AWB, a bill which aimed to deprive Americans of the very types of guns Amendment II was written to protect.

You can call it sneaky, or politically shrewd, or pour any number of other flavors of Koolaid, but that won't change the fact that the Bush Administration has now repeatedly and publicly stated that it supports the abrogation of Americans' rights.

I don't understand how that doesn't make everyone at THR very worried about the direction we're heading in.


You are absolutey right. And I plan to work to defeat the reelection of GWB by donating time and money to an opponent if the AWB gets renewed in any form. However, even agreeing with your sentiments expressed above, if the ban is not renewed then the president had a hand in it on some level. Even if only by simply not pressuring republicans in congress to get it passed. And so, it will appease me enough to select him as the lesser of two evils. Our rights were being taken away incrementally, and I can live with them being properly restored incrementally. The political reality is GWB needs the votes of soccer moms AND gun owners. If we can keep the issue off of his opponents hit list, and still get back some of our rights, it's okay with me. All bets are off if the ban gets renewed and he signs it.

[DonP]

I'm a little tired of hearing how we have all been "betrayed" by GWB. First, he hasn't done anything yet but say he will sign it if it gets to his desk.

Second the only restrictions I fear lately come from my own state, Illinois (yuck) not from the latest Lautenburg/Schumer brainstorm. That's a nice feeling to me

There are a lot of "ifs" between the lines there.

What are we all going to do, support Kerry, Al Sharpton or one of the other hard core grabbers that would name Sara Brady to some White House commission to study "Gun Violence" and implement National Gun Registration as an Executive Order, bypassing congress? That would give us four to eight years to whine and complain, wouldn't it.

Or maybe we should vote for a third party candidate on principle? That did us a lot of good in '92 and '96 didn't it? Sorry guys, I can'tr afford to be an idealist, I'm a pragmatist on this.

I'm voting and supporting the person that has a real chance of winning and shows me the best attitude towards my second amendment rights. If they have a track record in that area it's a big help too.

Before I vote libertarian, independent etc. on a national level you have to show me some grass roots success in one state or even a county or two.

Hey, if Howard Dean came out in favor of Vermont style carry laws across the country (and if I believed him and if there were enough people in congress to propose it etc, etc.) I'd be looking at backing him. But don't hold your breath for that one, based on the discussions ove at the DU.

We will not get our rights back in one sweeping move or even in one administration. We'll get them back one at a time. The tide of public opinion has turned we need to nurture that change .

NRA membership is up and Brady is almost out of business. GWB's current position does seem like a smart strategery to me too but I'll wait to see what really happens.

Don P.

[Augustwest]

One more time:

...that won't change the fact that the Bush Administration has now repeatedly and publicly stated that it supports the abrogation of Americans' rights.


Regardless of the outcome of the sunset/renewal of the AWB, our Chief Executive has made it known that he supports curtailing citizens' access to the kinds of firearms that might actually be useful in someday defending our country against tyranny.

He either does support the AWB, which makes him no friend of the Constitution, or he doesn't, and is just saying he does, which makes him just another dishonest politician.

So DonP, as tired as it might make you, yeah, I'm feeling pretty betrayed. Not surprised, but betrayed.

[OF]

Ok, the one thing we don't know is if he's serious or not. That said, imagine you're Dubya. You can do one of two things: say you'll sign it, or say you'll veto it. I'm sure you can imagine the size of the poo-storm that would errupt if he comes out and says he'll veto it. It would be a nightmare. By saying, only when asked, that he'll sign it, and understanding that the chance of it reaching his desk is slim, he avoids the poo-storm and only enrages a minimum number of gun owners (us) for a minimal amount of time with no negative consequences legislatively (meaning the ban is not enacted, so what's the harm in saying he would have signed it?).

It confounds the Democrats and gun-grabbers, I mean if the NRA opposes it and Bush supports it...how can that be? I thought the NRA was the White House now? The grabbers have lost their #1 ace-in-the-hole major rallying point: oppose Bush at all costs. Now they can't drive this thing forward by relying on the fact that their armies of useful idiots are going to rally to the cause just to stick it to Dubya, beacuse Dubya appears to be on their side! Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Dubya has the Democrats on the ropes. They are stunned into silence on this issue and his 'support' for the ban is a big part of the reason. There is no story. There is nothing to print. There is nothing to get righteous about. If the temperature on the story can be kept low and off the radar, it'll never get out of commitee. Most of the people in this country don't even know this thing exists. If there is no story, no useful idiots marching with signs, no big deal, it'll just die off quietly and bush and gun owners win.

If, and it's a big if, Dubya wants the ban to sunset, this is another brilliant move on his part. If he doesn't, and he actually is for a new ban, then he's not as smart as I think he is. I hope that's not the case.

- Gabe

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bush is being very shrewd politically here. Let's face it - the AW ban has a lot of popular support and even support among gun owners.

Bush can say he supports it all he wants. Unless the bill makes it to his desk, we will never know. Bush's statements of support are also very qualified. He says he supports the bill in its current form. Who thinks that any of the grabbers will have the self-discipline to not grab for the whole cake and add a bunch to any renewal bill?

By stating this, the Dems have no club to beat him with on this issue - in fact, it makes them look bad since they can't use the "Bush is a tool of the NRA" to rally their own troops.

You could even take this as a positive sign - Bush knows that gun owners were key in his election. The Republicans really lack a good grassroots effort and they depend on the NRA a lot for manpower and cash. Anyone think he really intends to backstab them two months before a major election? So why take this stance unless you know already that you'll never have to worry about the bill reaching your desk?

The House Subcommittee on Crime (which would hear any renewal bill) has a GOA A-rated chairman and a majority of GOA A-rated members. This essentially means that the chances of an AW ban renewal getting out of that subcommittee with a favorable report are about the same as Dianne Feinstein proposing that May 1st be "Everybody gets a free AR15 and Beta Cmag day".

Even on the wild chance it gets out of the subcommittee alive, it has two more hurdles before it even gets a floor vote and both the heads controlling them are GOA A-rated.

Folks, this bill is DOA as long as Republicans believe that gun owners are a political powerhouse. The main thing to do is to remind them of that and make sure they know that we aren't going to sit this one out; because if they think they can screw us or that we don't have enough pull to justify the risk, they will backstab us.

[Soap]

Bush is innocent until proven guilty, he can says that he will support it, if it actually sunsets, he will have my support. If it doesn't, he can count on not getting my vote ever again.

[Wildalaska]

Ditto Batholomew Roberts....

Notice Fliesher said the president "would" sign it..not will..but would...

Like

"Sure he WOULD sign it if it ever passed, not likely, ha ha"