AWB II? Let's fight!!!


PDA






ShootAndHunt
August 15, 2006, 11:39 PM
Just received a letter from Alan Gottlieb. It disclosed a secret bill proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg. This bill has a "beautiful", "genius" and disgusting title called "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act", but from its content, it could be undoubtedly called the familiar and notorious "Assault Weapon Ban" AWB II (or enhanced, extended?)

So the liberals already began their second try to take the rights away from us the law-abiding citizens, What should we do???

We have no other choice, we must fight back!!!

We have succeeded to overthrow AWB, we have succeeded in giving the democrats big lessons (they lost both the house and the senate, and they lost two presidential elections). Are they afraid of us?

You bet they are, you bet they ARE! That is why this infamous Mr. Lautenberg trys to sneak his bill as an amendment. He is sooooo afraid, even his comrads try to be quiet (they do learn our tactical skill called stealth, don't they?)

However, we are experienced fighters with glorious victories! Let us go into action again and defeat this bill and anything might follow before they could even do anything!

May the power with us!

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB II? Let's fight!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RexDart
August 15, 2006, 11:43 PM
Could you provide a link, or even a reference, to what bill this is in? Then, we might be able to contact our congressthing and be able to specifically point out this nefarious amendment.

Johnnybgood
August 15, 2006, 11:46 PM
is it an amendment too? You can bet I will be contacting my legislatures. Rep. Shimkus is 100% on our side. As for Durbin, well he never saw a gun control bill he didn't like. Obama has me confused. He voted FOR the non-confiscation of arms bill. I thought he was totally anti-gun. Let us know what bill and I'm sure we will all jump on it.

ShootAndHunt
August 15, 2006, 11:59 PM
What bill?

Bill #: S. 645 "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act".

According to Alan, this bill has the following "hightlights"

1. it would ban on the manufacture, transfer and possession of most semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. It names guns made by Bushmaster, Calico, Kel-Tec, Olympic Arms, and others

2. it would prohibit the manufacture, transfer and possession of magazines or clips that hold or can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

3. Violate this law and you're a criminal, up to 10 years in prison and lose your right to own any firearms and right to vote!

Aren't these sound familiar?

Librarian
August 16, 2006, 12:03 AM
S 645 IS

109th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 645

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 16, 2005

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. REED, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DODD, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary The usual gang of grabbers. Hasn't moved since the day it was introduced. This link (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00645:@@@L&summ2=m&) to Thomas should work.

DiFi isn't on the list, apparently because she introduced her own version, S 620, 2 days earlier. It, too, went to the Committee on the Judiciary and has not moved since March 14, 2005.

FTF
August 16, 2006, 12:09 AM
Seems to me like a "feel good" bill.

There are only 11 co-sponsors and it hasn't moved for a year and a half. Still in the initial review part (I don't know the legal terrm).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-645

The co-sponsors are like a who's-who of gun grabbers. Thankfully there are only 11 of them so this thing will probably never see the light of day... this year.

And yes, it does seek to ban anything semi-auto.

``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm
14 that--
15 ``(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level,
16 or slide action;

It also references the "Atomic Energy Act" :scrutiny: When will it ever end. They'll put these things everywhere if we don't pay attention.

Zundfolge
August 16, 2006, 12:22 AM
It, too, went to the Committee on the Judiciary and has not moved since March 14, 2005.

This is what the "Them Republicrats and Democans are all the same!" people don't get ... even though the GOP hasn't fought tooth and nail to repeal everything back to the NFA, they do prevent a LOT of this crap from even getting out of committee.


A Democrat controlled house and or senate would mean MORE of this crap would get to the floor and one or two bad one's might slip by and make its way to a Dem (or RINO) pres.

jlbraun
August 16, 2006, 01:58 AM
Emails away!

progunner1957
August 16, 2006, 02:06 AM
1. it would ban on the manufacture, transfer and possession of most semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. It names guns made by Bushmaster, Calico, Kel-Tec, Olympic Arms, and others

2. it would prohibit the manufacture, transfer and possession of magazines or clips that hold or can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

3. Violate this law and you're a criminal, up to 10 years in prison and lose your right to own any firearms and right to vote!


This kind of "stuff" would never stand a chance of becoming law if we could get all 80 million plus gun owners in this nation to act like gun owners and stop voting for antigun bigot politicans.

95% or more of Democratic candidates at the national level are proven to be the enemy of gun owners and our right to arms; why do millions of gun owners insist on voting for them?

crazed_ss
August 16, 2006, 02:33 AM
The problem is not all gun owners are Republicans.

My political views are probably a little more left of center which means I should vote democrat.. but since I like my guns, I should probably vote Republican..

A terrible dilemna.

jeepmor
August 16, 2006, 02:45 AM
So a vote for Hillary is a vote against guns. Not that I ever liked her mind you, just nice to see on paper, exactly where she stands. Not that I ever doubted it either, just good to know exactly what she thinks.

I wonder if she'll be asked about this topic during a debate or if she have some "yes man" screening all the questions as is so common in my corporate environment. We frequently get the "all questioned fielded" mantra only to find out that the "yes man" taking the questions from the audience is filtering what will and won't be answered.

I know a guy who was married to the Oregon PR chief in our world's largets semiconductr company, and he said that's just the way they do it. The common worker is duped into thinking he can ask tough questions only to be stymied by the go between person, the PR person in this case, who has direct orders not to allow certain questions through.

StrikeFire83
August 16, 2006, 03:18 AM
Okay, so I vote for Democrats and surrender my 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for Republicans and surrender my 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for either or neither and lose my 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment rights.

Pretty crappy choices, progunner1957. The Republicans are just as much my enemy as the Democrats.

Pretty bad news.

sacp81170a
August 16, 2006, 06:27 AM
Okay, so I vote for Democrats and surrender my 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for Republicans and surrender my 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for either or neither and lose my 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment rights.

The one the others all depend on is the 2nd, as has been pointed out time and time again. THAT's why I tend to be a single issue voter.

arthurcw
August 16, 2006, 11:07 AM
Okay, so I vote for Democrats and surrender my 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for Republicans and surrender my 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for either or neither and lose my 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment rights.

Lose the Second and you lose them all. Period. Everything else you believe you are losing can be reclaimed when the Second is secured. Without it, the others are dead and buried anyway.

longeyes
August 16, 2006, 11:27 AM
The co-sponsors are like a who's-who of gun grabbers. Thankfully there are only 11 of them so this thing will probably never see the light of day... this year.

The operative words are..."THIS YEAR."

They will keep trying, and they will use any means to get their way. I suggest we recognize the gravity of the threat.

GEM
August 16, 2006, 12:25 PM
That would never stand a chance if George W. Bush would say he would veto such bill. Oh, never mind.

JesseJames
August 16, 2006, 12:56 PM
You know, I really wish these guys would keep their "gun banning" to their municipalities and districts.
I'm sure the vast majority of law-abiding gun owning America would appreciate it. Also, it would let me know never to visit there and spend money.

When are they going to learn that you are not going to accomplish anything by sweeping water with a broom. You have to wade in and find the leak and do the repair.

FreedomKommando
August 16, 2006, 02:40 PM
So the liberals already began their second try to take the rights away from us the law-abiding citizens, What should we do???

Would that include such liberals as Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june00/guns_4-12.html), Rudolph W. Giuliani (http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/97a/me970302.html), and Michael Bloomberg? All Republicans.

Would that include George W. Bush, whose BATFE continues to infringe the Second Amendment?
As Aaron Zelman (http://www.jpfo.org/jewsrepublicans.htm) reminds us, The “firearm-friendly” Bush administration had been in power for three years by the time the BATFE descended on Peterson. BATFE entrapment and other abuses had been denounced by Congress more than 20 years earlier. But did anyone from the administration take a single step to curb the BATFE's injustice? No.

Would it include the numerous pro-2nd Amendment liberals who regularly post here on THR?

Phetro
August 16, 2006, 03:13 PM
Would it include the numerous pro-2nd Amendment liberals who regularly post here on THR?

I'm sure those numerous pro-Second-Amendment leftists are glad you mentioned them--really, all five of them are.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear even one of them support the meaning of the Second Amendment as written, with no restrictions. That's not "liberal" at all.

Gordon Fink
August 16, 2006, 03:19 PM
Neither do many “conservative” Republicans.

~G. Fink

antsi
August 16, 2006, 03:27 PM
FreedomKommando,

You've got quite a straw man going there.

Nobody ever said the Republicans or GWB are ideal on gun rights issues, or that all Republicans are uniformly pro-RKBA.

However, that doesn't mean there's no difference between the R's and D's, or that the differences are trivial.

This proposed legislation is a case in point. The sponsors are predominantly democrats. All the national-level congresscritters who are driving gun control bills are democrats - especially when you look at these kind of draconian laws that prohibit people keeping guns they already own.

Pataki, Blomberg, and Guliani are not representative of the main stream of Republicans. As bad as they are, they don't compare to Kennedy, Schumer, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry et al.

If Pataki, Blomberg, and Guliani were the worst RKBA threats we had in politics, we'd be a lot better off than we are with the above-mentioned democrats.

If we elect a Democrat congress and Hilary president, then abominations like this AWBII will have a strong chance of passing. Right now, with Republicans in control of the House and Senate, these kind of bills don't even make it out of committee.

Sure, I'd love a chance to go after the GWB BATFE policy book with a big eraser (or a shredder). But are you seriously claiming that President Hilary will be the same or better? If so, I call BS: Hilary would be a million times worse than GWB and you know it.

Bush: Admittedly, weak on gun issues. Tries not avoid inflaming either the gun-controllers or the gun-rights crowd. If an anti-gun policy isn't generating too much heat, he's going to leave it alone. If a pro-gun policy change would be intensely unpopular with the left-leaning, he probably won't make that policy change. Said he would renew the old AWBI "if it reached his desk," but worked behind the scenes to make sure it didn't reach his desk.

Clinton: Active, enthusiastic gun-grabber. Will take any opportunity to do whatever she can to advance gun control and set back gun rights. May go somewhat into "stealth mode" and declare her support for the second ammendment rights of hunters and skeet shooters during campaign season, but perfectly willing to sign her name to the most virulent anti-gun legislation proposed (including this one).

I don't have a problem with pro-RKBA liberals. Go ahead and take over your party. I'd love the chance to choose between two parties actively competing to win the gun owners vote. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while I wait for you to accomplish this.

Meanwhile, don't try to gloss over your support for the active, militant, anti-RKBA party by pointing and hollering at a few goofball Republicans on the East Coast urban far left fringe of the party. They don't have anything like the influence on Republican agenda that the gun-ban crowd has on the Democrats.

FreedomKommando
August 17, 2006, 03:23 PM
antsi wrote:
Meanwhile, don't try to gloss over your support for the active, militant, anti-RKBA party by pointing and hollering at a few goofball Republicans on the East Coast urban far left fringe of the party. They don't have anything like the influence on Republican agenda that the gun-ban crowd has on the Democrats.

My support? What on earth are you talking about? Go re-read my posts, sir, then come back and tell us where I ever claimed to support the Democrat Party?

Lone_Gunman
August 17, 2006, 04:15 PM
Said he would renew the old AWBI "if it reached his desk," but worked behind the scenes to make sure it didn't reach his desk.


In what way did Bush "work behind the scenes" to make sure the AWB didnt reach his desk? That statement is often repeated, but when asked about it, no one can ever back it up. What exactly do you think he did to work behind the scenes?

At best, what he did was "play chicken" with the second amendment. It worked out ok with the AWB, but he did the same thing and lost with Campaign Finance Reform. We don't need politicians who play games with the Bill of Rights.

DontBurnMyFlag
August 17, 2006, 06:10 PM
from my cold dead hands...

no piece of paper will make me give em up

GEM
August 17, 2006, 07:22 PM
Bush: Admittedly, weak on gun issues. Tries not avoid inflaming either the gun-controllers or the gun-rights crowd. If an anti-gun policy isn't generating too much heat, he's going to leave it alone. If a pro-gun policy change would be intensely unpopular with the left-leaning, he probably won't make that policy change. Said he would renew the old AWBI "if it reached his desk," but worked behind the scenes to make sure it didn't reach his desk.

Said this quite a few times - that makes him a liar. If the bill was worth, he should have worked for it. If he disagreed, he should have stated it.

Thus, he was disingenous about a basic human right. That doesn't seem ethical in my book.

Also, as long as gun folks rave about liberals, they hurt the cause. The discussion should be purely pro or antigun. Folks who may be progun may not want to be branded as social conservatives by definition.

Whenever, I see a discussion about gun rights where the poster starts off with ' damn liberals', I basically discard their intellectual contribution to the cause.

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 07:43 PM
That would never stand a chance if George W. Bush would say he would veto such bill. Oh, never mind.

It is not a good idea to threaten to veto a bill that does not even have a remote chance of ever leaving the committee it is stuck in, at least during this congress. That would just give it a credibility it does not have now.

ServiceSoon
August 17, 2006, 07:48 PM
What is the big deal? :scrutiny: These types of things happen all the time. There is no use ranting and raving about democrat this, rkba that. What is important is we have a system in place to notify all pro-gun advocates when theses sort of things happen. I commend ShootAndHunt for keeping us informed!

I guess what I am trying to say is that with out any organization we might as well give up the fight. It is amazing the things that can slip by without anybody knowing. We need to keep up on these issues. Im sure everybody is as busy as I am. You don’t have time to check what new bill has been introduced or who the newest member of the anit-gun team is. Im am fairly new to the political scene and I am sure this has already been brought up. I will get off my soapbox if some body can tell me if there is any sort of notification system that I can sign up for? Best regards!

antsi
August 18, 2006, 12:00 AM
Lone Gunman and GEM:

I more or less agree with your criticisms of Bush. I don't think you will find my description of Bush to be exactly a ringing endorsement.

However, I do think it is better to have a half-baked fence sitter trying to avoid the issue of RKBA, than having a full-fledged anti-gun activist working overtime to destroy the RKBA.

I never said Bush was the ideal choice. I said he is substantially better than the alternative.

As for the "working behind the scenes" bit - are you saying you don't think there is any coordination between the administration and the Republican congressional leadership? The White House doesn't negotiate with the leadership about which bills will be actively pushed and which ones will left to rot in committee? No, I don't have their conversations on tape. But if Bush really was an enthusiastic supporter of the AWB and really was eager to see its renewal passed into law, things would have turned out differently. He was obviously trying to avoid the issue while placating the opposition with a conditional promise for which he knew the condition would never come to pass. No, that's not my definition of a great leader. But it is a heck of a lot better than having a White House and Congress actively working in favor of AWB renewal.

GEM
August 18, 2006, 11:44 AM
I understand your point and your realistic assessment of Bush. I just get frustrated at those who think that he is great man for his duplicity. That it worked to our advantage in the RKBA is all well and good. However, I do wish we had more honest politicians. I see none of the current Republicans or Democrats having any policy plan except their own re-election or self interest.

Not to beat a dead horse, but Bush's leaping to fore in the Schiavo case as constrasted to his passivity on the RKBA is clear evidence that the issue is not truly important to him. That is better than some one to whom being anti-RKBA is truly important. I just like honesty in evaluating him and we get too much of he is a great leader around the gun world.

Lone_Gunman
August 18, 2006, 12:10 PM
I think it insane to attribute the AWB sunset to Bush. The conservative congressmen who inserted the sunset clause into it when it was passed initially need to get the credit.

I don't believe he worked behind the scenes. I think its ludicrous to suggest he would have said one thing on TV, then actively tried to do something else behind the scenes. Someone somewhere in some Congressperson's office would have leaked that Bush was doing that, and the media would have had a field day. I believe he meant it when he said he would sign a renewal.

By the time the AWB sunset, gun control was already very unpopular among most Republicans and Democrats. Sure, a few shrill members of both parties still supported it, but most did not. The voice of the people had spoken, and most of the people who originally voted for the AWB lost their jobs.

With a Republican controlled House (where there are fewer RINOS and more true conservatives), there was no chance for the AWB to be renewed, whether Bush or Kerry had been in office. The Senate, I have no doubt could have been convinced to vote to renew, but it died because of the House.

I don't think the AWB fight is necessarily over though, despite gun control's current unpopularity. The liberalization of the Republican party will eventually allow the AWB to come back, perhaps during the next presidential administration. I am afraid some of our true Republican allies in the House may suffer from Bush's unpopularity and be replaced by Democrats. The House is the only thing that stands between freedom and gun control.

On the issue of civil rights, though, Bush is one of the worst presidents of all time, and certainly the worst in my lifetime.

antsi
August 18, 2006, 12:43 PM
Lone Gunman,

OK, we are both speculating about Bush's attitudes and actions regarding the AWB. His public actions were wishy-washy; he certainly did not actively lobby for renewal. He did say he would sign a renewal. The bottom line is that it didn't happen.

Whatever the case on this one issue, I think my general description of Bush's stance on gun control is accurate. He is basically avoidant on the issue.

His opponents in the last two presidential elections, and the likely front-runners in the campaign to replace him, aren't avoidant at all. Gore, Kerry, and Clinton are all ardent anti-RKBA activists who as president would have, or will be, working overtime against gun rights.

By the way, if you think it's "ludicrous" to think a politician would pay lip service to a bill in public, while privately behaving in such a way as to let it languish, then I think your understanding of politics is rather naive.

RexDart
August 18, 2006, 02:07 PM
Likewise, what I see from the BATFE in terms of tightening the screws on importation of parts kits, de-milled weapons and such things indicates a president who is not pro-RKBA... the BATFE reports up through the executive branch.

Like the FCC, BATFE can make policies with the force of law. We need a pro-RKBA pres who will appoint pro-RKBA administrators to the BATFE who will in turn overturn some of these more egregious infringements.

Lone_Gunman
August 18, 2006, 03:04 PM
RexDart is completely correct.

If Bush was really pro-RKBA, he could appoint BATF officials who would interpret the "sporting purposes" much more broadly to include target shooting and plinking. He could also reign in their heavy handedness of FFL holders and other law abiding citizens trying to purchase guns at gun shows.

Bush could also, with the stroke of a pen, rescind past presidential executive orders regarding firearms importation bans. Of course, his daddy was one of the worst offenders, and there is no way he could ever go against daddy.

Gunfire
August 18, 2006, 04:30 PM
Bush could also, with the stroke of a pen, rescind past presidential executive orders regarding firearms importation bans.

+1

Why won't Bush resind those import bans?

Didn't the 'new manufactured' automatic weapons ban become law in '86 or '89, under the republican admin?

Didn't a majority repub Congress allow the lautenberg act to pass in 1996?

Are repubs truly pro RTBA? They've had 6 years to repeal these unconstitutional laws but haven't done squat except squat on the 1st and 4th Amendments.

GEM
August 18, 2006, 04:45 PM
By the way, if you think it's "ludicrous" to think a politician would pay lip service to a bill in public, while privately behaving in such a way as to let it languish, then I think your understanding of politics is rather naive.

Naive, no way - I'm very cynical and pointing out that in the fall of civilization we are willing to accept hypocrisy as acceptable behavior. It is our acceptance of such behaviors as clever politics that contributes to the downfall of our standards.

While some can accept such behaviors as not being naive - I would rather have folks act to a higher standard. Can we accept that Bush does not meet any higher ethical standards than that bete noire of the right - Bill Clinton. He lied about his sex life and Bush won't take a stand (or 'worked behind the scenes') on a basic human right. Who is more unethical or cowardly?

The best Bush can claim is that he was disengaged and clueless and compared to being actively unethical or a weasel.

RexDart
August 18, 2006, 05:52 PM
Why won't Bush rescind those import bans?

I can think of one reason: the war on terror. You have to admit that the relative ease of manufacturing AK's from demilled parts kits (some of which include full-auto FCGs) and 80% flats all bought (relatively) anonymously over the internet would make arming a terrorist cell with small arms relatively easy. Doubtless it gives heartburn to more than one Homeland Security analyst. This scenario is probably the raison d'etre for the clampdown on parts importation.

That said, I don't think that's a good enough reason.

Honestly, as well-armed as Americans are in general, an attack with small arms is not going to be a real effective terrorist attack, even should it succeed. For better or worse, we're accustomed to criminals who use guns, even randomly. And given the porosity of our borders, bigger & better pre-assembled weapons are probably already being 'imported.' Unliscensed heavy weapons, explosives and NBC agents are the real scare scenario.

We the people shouldn't be denied the right to posess arms just because they're of foreign origin. Ironic: we won't allow de-milled AK47s, but undocumented potential militants are catch & release. :banghead:

antsi
August 18, 2006, 10:37 PM
------quote--------
Can we accept that Bush does not meet any higher ethical standards than that bete noire of the right - Bill Clinton. He lied about his sex life and Bush won't take a stand (or 'worked behind the scenes') on a basic human right. Who is more unethical or cowardly?
-------------------

I never said either one of them was more ethical than the other.

I said that the potential Democrat presidents - Kerry, Gore, Hilary - would be significantly worse for gun rights than Bush has been.

I never said Bush was a pro-gun president. I said he is a fence sitter and tries to avoid the issue, and that is a lot better than having a major anti-RKBA activist like Kerry, Gore, or Hilary as president.

Bush's BATFE have been jerks and weenies, sure. I never said Bush was running the BATFE the way I'd like to see it run. I said he is not doing nearly as much harm there as Gore, Kerry, or Hilary would be.

Please, try reading what I actually write before setting off your flashing red anti-Bush lights and sirens.

Lone_Gunman
August 19, 2006, 12:04 AM
The problem with someone like Bush is that his political posturing and back-handedness create apathy among an admittedly small group of people who traditionally vote Republican, ie, the strict-constructionist libertarian conservatives who believe that games should not be played with civil rights and the Constitution, that government needs to be kept small and out of the way, and that our leaders should be held to a higher standard.

Apathy means we don't vote for Republicans. Now, certainly we don't go out and vote Democrat, but might vote for a third party or abstain. Either way, votes are taken away from Republicans, and they really have no one to blame but themselves.

limbaughfan
August 19, 2006, 02:25 PM
where can I learn more about the AWB II.

NineseveN
August 19, 2006, 04:07 PM
Okay, so I vote for Democrats and surrender my 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for Republicans and surrender my 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for either or neither and lose my 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment rights.

Pretty crappy choices, progunner1957. The Republicans are just as much my enemy as the Democrats.

Pretty bad news.

Hehe, my thoughts almost exactly.

antsi
August 19, 2006, 10:45 PM
---quote------
Apathy means we don't vote for Republicans. Now, certainly we don't go out and vote Democrat, but might vote for a third party or abstain. Either way, votes are taken away from Republicans, and they really have no one to blame but themselves.
--------------

This, I can agree with. The dude has just about lost me with his irresponsible spending (as bad as any Democrat).

Dravur
August 20, 2006, 02:45 AM
Does saying he would support the AWB if it reached his desk and working behind the scenes to kill it make GWB a Liar? Simple, it doesn't. He said..... If it reaches his desk, he would sign it. It did not reach his desk....

If I say, I will eat that pork chop if it reaches my desk, and it does not reach my desk, then I did not lie. I told the truth... Had the pork chop reached my desk, I would have chowed down and inhaled it with a side of fava beans.

Now, let's say, that I am overweight and should not eat the pork chop. Unfortunatly, this is also true. Now, Maybe I ask my SO to not make me a pork chop as it would not be good for me. She instead, makes me a salad, which I consume with relish.

Again, I would have eaten the pork chop as that would have been the will of my SO, who I have to contend with, but I worked on her behind the scenes and I got my salad that She kindly made for me.

Nowhere did I lie......

Thin Black Line
August 20, 2006, 09:15 AM
That would never stand a chance if George W. Bush would say he would veto such bill. Oh, never mind.

Most people won't understand that you were being sarcastic. In fact,
George II could do a lot of damage to 2A rights before he leaves office
by executive order, a signing statement, or just on a whim of his
interpretation as CiC in the Long War on Terror in which America is
globalcop. I can think of a lot of plausible scenarios in which EBRs could
be banned because of "global small arms trafficking to terrorist groups."
All they have to do is find one in the hands of Chiapas rebel, make a
big deal about it, and that would be all it takes to get the ball rolling.

After all, the Mexican AG has already been complaining about US firearms
and RPGs, yes RPGs, getting into the hands of Mexican narco gangs.

All it takes is a stroke of Bush's pen and your 2A rights go the same way
as your 4A rights.

Lone_Gunman
August 20, 2006, 09:24 AM
Does saying he would support the AWB if it reached his desk and working behind the scenes to kill it make GWB a Liar? Simple, it doesn't. He said..... If it reaches his desk, he would sign it. It did not reach his desk....


George Bush said MUCH MORE than that he would sign it if it reached his desk. Bush made it very clear he wanted the AWB renewed, in his public statements.

Before you try to defend him on this issue, and join in his little word games, you should use google to find out what Bush has actually said:

George W. Bush on the Assault Weapons Ban

MODERATOR: "Mr. President, new question, two minutes."

"You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not? "

BUSH: "Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties."
The third presidential debate on October 13, 2004 in Tempe, AZ.

"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society."
Bush says White House Lax in Enforcing Gun Laws, Houston Chronicle, August 12, 1999

"The president has "made it clear he supports the extension of the assault weapons ban," said White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan.
Uphill Battle for Weapons Ban, Newsday, December 9, 2003.

"with regard to the assault weapons ban, [President Bush] supports the extension of the current ban."
White House spokesperson Claire Buchan on February 23, 2004.



Don't fall prey to what the Republican Spinmeisters (both the professional ones, and the amateur ones here on this forum) say Bush said. Look at what he and his press people have said, and you will know Bush's true intentions.

Thin Black Line
August 20, 2006, 09:39 AM
Before you try to defend him on this issue, and join in his little word games, you should use google to find out what Bush has actually said:

LG, this is an election year and people can't let facts challenge their current
perception of reality.

GEM
August 20, 2006, 02:02 PM
People trying to defend GWB's position on the AWB are starting to sound like GWB trying to explain something. :D

Only a Republican zealot would accept his position and claim it was political genius. What more is there to be said?

Be delusional if one wants. After 9/11, I thought he would be a better leader than Gore would have been. We can't tell what Gore would have done but GWB is so out of his depth as President, it is frightening. He just doesn't have the ability for the job. Many folks on the right have come to the same conclusion.

Only folks who cannot dispassionately unhook themselves from their need to be loyal to the leader can think he is doing a good job.

But this is a thread hijack. A new AWB will come if it suits the purposes of either party. Only a few folks vote on the basis of whether it is a basic human right. Both Dems and Repubs will vote for it, if they can get into the soccer mom panties, so to speak.

Silver Bullet
August 20, 2006, 02:12 PM
This is what the "Them Republicrats and Democans are all the same!" people don't get ... even though the GOP hasn't fought tooth and nail to repeal everything back to the NFA, they do prevent a LOT of this crap from even getting out of committee.


A Democrat controlled house and or senate would mean MORE of this crap would get to the floor and one or two bad one's might slip by and make its way to a Dem (or RINO) pres.
Absolutely correct, except I don't know if those people really "don't get" it or if they're hoping we're not paying attention.

A quick check of voting records shows which party is trying to restrict gun rights.

mec
August 20, 2006, 02:33 PM
Fund raising. This sort of bill gets introduced to show the political base that the leftist they voted for are out there building the socialist utopia. Right now some of the radical left are upset with Hilliary for supporting the war on terror and trying to appear to be a centrist. Similar thing going on with conservative legislation recently introduced by the republicans.

A few years ago, One of the Chaffees- left wing republican of all things, introduced a bill that said " the Second Amendment is hereby repealed." Not much chance of it even passing much less acheiving the 2/3 majority but it did ignite the warm fuzzies among the mainstream media and other government over all types.

fallingblock
August 22, 2006, 01:29 AM
We had a choice in 2000 between Al and "Dubya".

(please spare the 3rd party fantasies)

Surely no one who has lived through the Clinton Administration
believes that Al Gore would have been a better choice for any
of our freedoms, especially RKBA?:eek:

Renewal of AWB I would have been assured under a Gore Presidency.

Likewise with Kerry - there's a nasty case of anti-gun dementia.:barf:

And no, Bush didn't sign the AWB because it didn't reach his desk.

Kerry or Gore would have ensured it got to their desk.

If we hope to protect RKBA over the next two election cycles,
it'll be the Republicans at the national level who will provide the
best chance achieve our goal. Let's work to get a decent candidate
up for president in 2008.

The DNC is virulently and institutionally anti-gun and won't be easily
shifted from that position.

"Dubya" may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he was a better choice than either of the alternatives for our RKBA.

On a pessimistic note:

I'm returning to the U.S. next month to enjoy (hopefully) two years before the assault on our RKBA begins again in earnest.:scrutiny:

NineseveN
August 22, 2006, 11:21 AM
Kerry or Gore would have ensured it got to their desk.

Through what means, exactly?

GEM
August 22, 2006, 12:29 PM
I agree that if Gore or Kerry got in, they might be proactive on the AWB. That would have been a bad thing.

However, I'm not giving GWB any Brownie points on other freedoms. He and the social conservatives are certainly not fans of personal liberties or some of the other amendments.

Let's be real here - GWB has not done a particularly good job as President. The best we can say is that he wasn't proactive for the AWB or other antigun measures. I find it hard to find a major issue that he has handled well. Tax cuts maybe - but then he let spending go way out of control.

He's out of his intellectual depth, I'm afraid.

I personally hope the GOP can come up with a truly competent person as a candidate for the job. Looking at the GOP or Democratic potentials - abstracting out the RKBA issue for a second - I really don't see anyone with the sheer character, brains or force of will to lead us in difficult times. I see a set of little people motivated for their chance at fame - without vision or real conviction.

While some folks concentrate only on the RKBA - I must look at the total picture of someone who can deal with the country's problems and the world. There's no one on the horizon from either party that impresses me.

Yesterday, someone asked GWB if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and he said - NOTHING. So, seems to me - that is a clarion call for Cheney to resign. That clockwork %($(*% lied through his teeth to the American people. I suggest that Cheney go back to the skeet range and the Pres. put forth Lieberman for VP!!

Then, make Rumsfield Secretary of the Artic Icefields. If that happened, I might regain some respect for Bush. Note, that they shuffled Wulfowitz off to the World Bank.

The Lincolns, Churchills, Roosevelts, Disraelis, etc. - they don't exist anymore. We get presidents who are proud to say that they don't even read.

Bah - the AWB pales in comparison to the threat of the incompetent leadership we will have if we are going to WWIII.

Now, I'm depressed. :(

fallingblock
August 22, 2006, 11:26 PM
NineseveN:

Kerry or Gore would have ensured it got to their desk.

Through what means, exactly?

By use of the 'bully pulpit'.

Even without a majority in the house,
Slick Willy was able to do RKBA repeated harm.
The S&W 'deal' comes to mind.

Gore or Kerry would not have found it difficult to re-authorize the AWB-
or worse. What's more, they would have eagerly sought to do so. :scrutiny:


GEM:


The best we can say is that he wasn't proactive for the AWB or other antigun measures. I find it hard to find a major issue that he has handled well. Tax cuts maybe - but then he let spending go way out of control.

He's out of his intellectual depth, I'm afraid.

No argument there.

But as you seem to imply - so was Gore ("An Inconvenient Truth"):rolleyes:

And Kerry.:barf:



I personally hope the GOP can come up with a truly competent person as a candidate for the job. Looking at the GOP or Democratic potentials - abstracting out the RKBA issue for a second - I really don't see anyone with the sheer character, brains or force of will to lead us in difficult times. I see a set of little people motivated for their chance at fame - without vision or real conviction.

While some folks concentrate only on the RKBA - I must look at the total picture of someone who can deal with the country's problems and the world. There's no one on the horizon from either party that impresses me.

AGREED! And THAT's the genuine problem we face, isn't it?

It's pretty obvious that someone like John McCain is more of the same, perhaps without even the RKBA advantage.:banghead:

What can be done?

I've been away from the U.S. for long enough that I expect to
suffer from a "Rip van Winkle" effect upon returning. I'll be
volunteering time to help out good local folks, but have no
idea what, if anything, can be done to encourage selection of
someone with more appeal as a presidential contender.


The Lincolns, Churchills, Roosevelts, Disraelis, etc. - they don't exist anymore. We get presidents who are proud to say that they don't even read.

Bah - the AWB pales in comparison to the threat of the incompetent leadership we will have if we are going to WWIII.


I'm with you 100%

I wonder if anyone with ability even wants the president's job anymore?

How do we facilitate the nomination of able leaders rather than the
egotistical boneheads currently frontrunning for each party's nomination?:confused:

Silver Bullet
August 23, 2006, 01:19 AM
Kerry or Gore would have ensured it got to their desk.
Through what means, exactly?

Kerrygore would have misrepresented its purpose (lied out his butt) to the public, and made a big hullaballoo about it with the liberal media to try and sway the uninformed parts of the public to pressure their congressmen.

Some congressmen/senators were doing that already (check out the California senators demented ravings on letting AWB expire), but as president, kerrygore would have drummed up a lot more attention.

NineseveN
August 23, 2006, 11:40 AM
fallingblock and Silver Bullet:

So basically, you're just playing WAG. Hmmm, I thought maybe you had something there.

Byron Quick
August 23, 2006, 12:08 PM
This is what the "Them Republicrats and Democans are all the same!" people don't get ... even though the GOP hasn't fought tooth and nail to repeal everything back to the NFA, they do prevent a LOT of this crap from even getting out of committee.

And I, for one, feel darned insulted when the Republican Party comes to me and points to this pusillanimous conduct as proof that they're the indispensable defenders of the Second Amendment.

It's sad days for the Republic when the choice is between which party is trampling upon Americans' rights slower and to a slightly more limited degree.

Both parties the same? Not quite. The Republicans simply make me nauseous while the Democrats invoke active vomiting.

Lone_Gunman
August 23, 2006, 02:03 PM
Some congressmen/senators were doing that already (check out the California senators demented ravings on letting AWB expire), but as president, kerrygore would have drummed up a lot more attention.


But the Republicans were in control of the Congress, and unless they passed a bill to create new AWB, it wouldnt matter how much attention Kerry and Gore tried to draw to it.

Are you saying the Republicans would have caved in to the pressure from Kerry? If so, then that really isnt much of an endorsement for the Republican party is it?

GEM
August 23, 2006, 02:42 PM
When the GOP had control of the White House and Congress, where was the wave of progun legislation? I seemed to have missed it.

The national leadership of the GOP cares little for the RKBA. I think that they thought it was a big social conservative issue a few years ago and used it.

However, they now think that gays, abortion, flag burning and terror will bring out the right wing base more. Thus, guns are on the back burner.

Like I said - Bush can be very outspoken about these but not about the RKBA. It is only on the local congresional level that bans are blocked nowadays.

Geno
August 23, 2006, 02:50 PM
There is not a village, town or city in America that does not have Internet access. Rather than our already over-worked politicians being hounded to exhaustion, I propose that ALL present and future proposed legislation be tabled until a secured, and reliable internet-voting format be established.

Perhaps "representation" has its limits. After all, Congressional approval rates have hit an all-time low, approximately 24% of American approve of Congress. I say that high time we have a change to legislative initiative, discourse and adoption. Why should a body of 500ish slavishly, over-worked, poor-souled, American congressional “do-gooders” continue to subject themselves to this self-sacrifice and self-abuse.

America, let us all free them of their chains of burden, and send them packing. I submit that a part-time congress and senate would thus be feasible. That fact would permit all of them to prepare for, compete for, and hold regular, full-time employment just like all of us. Given that sameness with us, they could via empathy then truly represent us in their VOLUNTARY, unpaid, part-time service, and so do being limited to a single 4 to 6 years term (never to be re-subjected). For any more pressing matters, simply announce on television, radio and e-mail that a secure vote is scheduled for X-day so as to clarify American resolve for any given crisis, short of war, for same which the President would call emergency session.

Those public servants who desired more consistent employment could be volunteered to work the nation's borders, enforcing current immigration laws.

:neener:

Sarcasm button off.

In short, perhaps Congress has too much free time on it hands. Or as stated by one person much wiser than I, "An idle mind is the devil's playground."

Sarcasm button really off. :)

Doc2005

Silver Bullet
August 23, 2006, 11:48 PM
Are you saying the Republicans would have caved in to the pressure from Kerry?

The Republicans are, for the most part, good intentioned on matters of RKBA, but in some ways clueless.

Consider how they were all set to pass the Gun Industry Protection bill even after the Dems added an amendment to include AWB renewal. The NRA stepped in and convinced the Republicans to vote it down, hoping to reintroduce the Protection bill later without the amendment. And, that is what happened. As a result, we have the Gun Industry Protection passed without renewal of AWB, but thanks to the NRA more than to the Republicans.

fallingblock
August 24, 2006, 02:19 AM
cloud your overview of the situation.:)

It seems fairly evident that, given the choices available,

"Dubya" was the better choice for RKBA.

We are talking about Gore and Kerry here.:uhoh:

I'd even be willing to opine that "Dubya" was a better choice
from the standpoint of national defense as well.:eek:

But the real problem we gun folks face is how to cement a
plank into the (since the other one won't even consider it)
Republican party which would guarantee the maintaining and strengthening of RKBA.

Given the political landscape we now inhabit, I am pessimistic
that this can be achieved.

Assuredly, AWB II will appear sooner rather than later
if (when) the Republicans lose control of Congress and the Whitehouse.:scrutiny:

GEM
August 24, 2006, 12:16 PM
A Republican plank would probably jabber about 'sportsmen' and not be worth spit.

NineseveN
August 24, 2006, 12:27 PM
NineseveN, you might be letting your opinion of Bush.... cloud your overview of the situation.

What opinion of Bush? I think you’re letting your assumptions get the better of you, I don’t dislike Bush anymore than I’ve disliked any other president since Reagan and I even voted for him (once anyway).


It seems fairly evident that, given the choices available,

"Dubya" was the better choice for RKBA.

“Better” does not mean ‘good’. Sure, Bush was better than Kerry or Gore for the RKBA in the same way that a punch in the mouth is better than a kick to the genitals, but the question is not which is better or which one is less bad, it’s whether or not one or the other is ‘good’. Bush is not good for the RKBA.

However, some people like to demonize Kerry and say that if he were president he would single-handedly have all guns confiscated and all gun-owners burned or imprisoned, which is highly unlikely and rambling off on a tangent about it is pretty silly…it would take more than the desires of a sitting president to accomplish what the fear-mongers rattle on about in these kinds of threads every day.

The Cavalry
August 24, 2006, 02:53 PM
Here is the "strengthened" AWB II from back in 2003, only their lack of Dictocratic votes stopped their tyranny.

Look up HR 2038 and S 1431 find this:

HR 2038 with 11 co-sponsors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2038:

S 1432 with 111 co-sponsors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01431:@@@P

A few exerpts on what would have been banned:


`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

...(*NOTE: even bigger list of specifically-named firearms than the first AWB)

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

...(*NOTE: no more two-features clause, a detachable magazine and anything on this list is banned)

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

The Cavalry
August 24, 2006, 03:02 PM
And when the 2003 bills got stopped in committee, Lautenberg tried it again in 2005.

Senate bill S645 with the usual 11 Dictocrat co-sponsors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.645:


Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)


Same longer list of specifically-named guns banned firearms, same single-feature ban instead of two, same "military design" clause as the previous bills.

If the Democrats want to convince people they support the 2nd Amendment, this has to stop.

GEM
August 24, 2006, 03:18 PM
Thinking about it, you know that extremist crackpots of both parties continually submit bills to abridge the rights of citizens. They differ in what rights they are nutso about.

Thus, we get continued AWBs and the gun world gets all upset. But some leftists like it for their base.

And we get continual flag burning amendments when the right wants to abridge freedom of expression but wants the issue to stir up the authoritarian base.

What else is new in the world? We are in a global struggle and the left and right bring up trivia to stir up their extremists and then they do not deal with significant issues.

Will an AWB ban or flag burning amendment stop an Iranian nuke from landing in your backyard? I think not.

Prince Yamato
August 25, 2006, 02:44 AM
I am seriously so damn sick of this gun-ban nonsense. More crap from politicians who want to look like they give a damn about the community without really doing anything. There's a difference between the 1994 ban and any new ban though. Now, due to the internet, the gun owners are mobilized. We told these people we didn't want their socialistic laws. In 2004 we pushed them to the coast. I say in 2006-2008 we push their asses into the ocean (by votes of course). In many respects, we preach to the choir when we tell each other what to do. Remember when liberals had all those "educational" slogan posters in classrooms around the country? One of them stated, "Education is Power". Reluctant as I am to admit it, they were correct (probably the only good idea they've had in the last 100 years). Education is power, so gun owners of America, EDUCATE people about guns. EMPOWER people. Bring your friends/co-workers, wives, children with you next time you shoot. Let's turn the liberal's logic on them. Empower women with guns. Explain how all the cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest crime. We all know the spiel. But the key to unlocking these chains of bondage is being vocal about it. If we remain vocal people WILL listen.

GEM
August 25, 2006, 12:19 PM
But don't talk to the media:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=217188

They might make fun of you.

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB II? Let's fight!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!