[Med 10]

I really dont wanna soubd ignorant, but can someone please tell me why our President supports this?

[Med 10]

Speaking of ignorant, sorry about the above spelling.

[Lone_Gunman]

He thinks that saying he supports will bring moderates to him in the next election.

[TarpleyG]

Yeah, he's playing both sides. If the law doesn't get through the House/Senate to his desk, he doesn't lose face either way. On the same token, he is not forcing the issue to make sure it gets there either. He's just keeping low-key on the whole thing and I can't say as I blame him. Regardless of any feelings here, Bush in office for the next term is far better than any alternative we are likely to see.

GT

[Blain]

He suppots it, like the patriot act, campaign finance reform, n child left behind education plan, and home land security act because it is all part of the New World Order plan.

Heck, he is even out Clintoning Bill Clinton!! :what:

[Lone_Gunman]

Blain,

give us a break!

[Blain]

I am, I am trying to remove your blindfolds before you run blindly off a cliff.

[Bainx]

Yes, its hard to figure isn't it? Or is it?
Went to the gunshow in Knoxville today and went straight to the NRA booth. Believe me, there was a lot of finger shakin' going on. Me at them and them at me. I told them in no uncertain terms that if the NRA does not scorn our Pres. for double-crossing us, I will trash the NRA and will work hard to get Bush out of office.
"He's playing games in order to......bla, bla, bla, ......"
I snipped that one off by replying " I don't appreciate anybody playing games with my rights"

"The NRA has told Bush he is in serious trouble"
My reply:
"Where is the statement in writing to us the members or the press?"

"He said before the election that he was going to support the renewal of AWB".
Boy, I'm sick of hearing this one. Will somebody PLEASE give me the source of him saying that?
I know, he said he would " uphold all current laws" but , that means the second amendment also!

Believe me, when I confront fellow gunners with this issue I get all of the following:
"He said he would support it before the election"
"He is playing games"
"Its only politics"
Heck, I had one guy tell me he does not believe the White House ever made the statement that it supports the AWB, and walked off [ultimate denial].
As I have said in prior postings, "It's time to call a spade a spade". No matter how much it hurts.





Regardless of any feelings here, Bush in office for the next term is far better than any alternative we are likely to see.
Wrong answer.

He suppots it, like the patriot act, campaign finance reform, n child left behind education plan, and home land security act
Right answer.
:fire:

[Lone_Gunman]

Well, I guess you guys are just going to have to vote for a true freedom loving America, like Algore, or Hillary.

Or you could vote Libertarian, nothing wrong with that, except that they are not going to win.

I don't understand why its so hard for people to believe, accept, and not have a problem with Bush "playing games" so to speak.

If he was to come out strongly against renewing the ban, it might make purists feel better, but it is going to do much more harm than good. Regardless of what the media says, Bush is a smart man, and knows what he is doing.

At least, I think so...

[HBK]

Ok, so let's say Hillary freaking Clinton runs for president. You think she would make a better president than Bush? Would you vote for her? Please.:rolleyes: Better yet, you don't vote for her or Bush, you vote for a third party, which splits the conservative vote. Then you help put Hillary in office. Would that be a better plan?

[Blain]

Actually it would be better to have someone like Gore or Hillary in office because at least then the conservatives wouldn't be asleep! The conservatives lay down and allowed Bush to do certain things that they would have never let Clinton or Gore do without a fight.

Bush is a Trojan horse.

All in all it doesn't really matter, as any president who is put into office is just playing a P.R. show. They all have the same order, they all serve the same master. Elections are all a shame, staged for public consumption so that they think they are making a difference. The Republican party is the right arm of the New World Order, the Democratic Party is the left arm of the New World Order, they are both attached to the same body. Any public debate between the two is simply theater staged for public consumption; they both have the same goals. The sooner you realize this, the better.

[Shooter 2.5]

We had a liberal extremist and now we have a moderate who said on the Oprah show BEFORE the election that he would sign the bill IF it reached his desk.

If you think stepping backward will help us, do you fix your flat tire with a sledgehammer to the engine?


It's really easy. Tell us what we should do now so it doesn't reach his desk. I know what I was doing. I was working in a candidate's office back in the last election because we knew the last election would tell us if we could sunset this thing or not.

[MAKOwner]

His father came up with the original imported AWB in 89, I don't know why it is surprising that Dubya is also against them. Probably indoctrinated by his father... That and it is a political ploy to seem "middle of the road" on the issue. If he pushes for it directly very hard I'll be surprised though.

[Lone_Gunman]

quote:

"Actually it would be better to have someone like Gore or Hillary in office"

Blain, are you smoking crack?

Did you really support Gore in 2000???

If not, then who?

Did you vote?

[Bainx]

Shooter 2.5...you speak in great parables my son. Will you please speak in plain language, easy to understand?

"Plain talk is easy to understand"
---Teddy Roosevelt

By the way, I still challenge you to give me the source of the quote of Bush stating he will sign the bill IF it were to reach his desk.

Let the [conservative copout] games continue

[SDC]

I don't for a second doubt that he's playing games in order to appeal to "moderates", but that sort of prevarication is better left to professional sleazemeisters, like Democrats.
(Not that American politics is likely to affect me, here in the Liberal "paradise" of Kanada, but if you believe in something, stand behind it.)

[Blain]

"Blain, are you smoking crack?"

I don't smoke.

"Did you really support Gore in 2000???"

No

"If not, then who?"

Harry Browne

"Did you vote?"

Yes, for Harry Browne.

[wQuay]

Actually it would be better to have someone like Gore or Hillary in office.

Possibly. At least then "conservatives" would be on the warpath instead of playing apologist for Bush.

There are many ways to influence the government, and I think voting may be the least effective. Speak out for the truth, stage demonstrations, and confront the bureaucrats directly, and you'll accomplish far more than someone who votes every four years and thinks he's done all he could.

[Lone_Gunman]

Blain, I guess my question is

Would you be just as happy with Gore in the Whitehouse, as Bush?

[Jim March]

Here's what I think is actually happening - I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's what's going on:

1) Back in 2000, Bush tried to appear as "moderate" on guns as possible, which was admittedly a stretch because he'd done a number of pro-gun things as TX governor.

2) To that end, he promised support for extending the ban before the election.

3) He got in by a squeak.

4) He's now assuming that lying without having a good reason to will get him in beaucoup hot water with the media. Which is prolly true, possibly apart from Fox.

5) Solution: support the AWB now, get the "hardcore gunnies" all fired up. Then when the upcoming study mandated by the original law shows it hasn't done squat except produce a cool new generation of concealable handguns built around the 10rd limit, providing the "ammo" for a policy change "close to the last minute".

Result: gunnies ultimately happy, grabbers have a hard time calling him a liar, it's all good.

[Lone_Gunman]

Thank you, Jim March.

[Byron Quick]

I'm a Libertarian. Really, the only thing that attracts me about Bush is that he is not Gore.

I can't offer a cite to when and where but I definitely remember Bushing saying that he would sign the AWB renewal if it reached his desk as President. And that was during the last election before he was President. He did not promise to support it or to lobby for it.

[Kharn]

Everyone needs to realize one thing: W is as crafty as a fox.

He's already shafted the democrats on the Campaign Finance Reform issue (he signed it into law to get McCain & the democrats to shut up, while a court ruled all the parts harmful to conservatives are unconstitutional), and I think he's lining up for a repeat performance.

His Pro-AW ban statement has totally removed the Democrat plan to attack him on gun control from the playbook for 2004, their only alternatives are to go extreme (like the current bill in the house) or go pro-rights (like they would ever do that), but either way, they cant say he's an NRA tool. Everyone on Capitol Hill remembers what happened to the House of Reps in 1994 when the gun-owners got pissed about the ban, and none of them want to lose their jobs (notice its only the super-safe Democrats pushing for the ban this time around, none are from areas where they face major conservative opposition).

The ban will sunset.

Kharn

[Zundfolge]

5) Solution: support the AWB now, get the "hardcore gunnies" all fired up. Then when the upcoming study mandated by the original law shows it hasn't done squat except produce a cool new generation of concealable handguns built around the 10rd limit, providing the "ammo" for a policy change "close to the last minute".

Only problem with that is that the deck is stacked ... who's conducting the "study" to show the effects of the AWB? If its the justice department, then we're screwed because they love restricting freedom (means job security for them).

Do you really expect the study mandated by the law to be honest?

I don't.

I hope I'm wrong.

[BB93YJ]

Believe it or not, the DOJ studies are usually pretty dry, full of facts and devoid of politics. Check out the latest to see the stats on LEO's killed in the line of duty. It just gives the dry facts and not much else. A study by them on the effect of the AWB on the use of the banned guns will just prove what progunners have been saying all along, "It ain't the gun, or the looks of the gun, or how many cartridges the gun's magazine holds that's the problem..." The percentage of AW's used to kill LEO's before the ban was miniscule to begin with. The AWB didn't change the numbers, I'd be willing to bet, but I haven't seen the latest DOJ study to be sure.

[Hard Charger]

IMO,

it is because he has a hard time defending his point of view on any issue. Let's face it, he is no Ronald Reagan when it comes to speaking. He knows he will be hit with the issue every time he faces members of the media. He just cannot explain himself without a prewritten speech and teleprompter.


So he takes the easy way out, and avoids the hard questions.

The democrats are going to manipulate him just like they did his father on tax increases.

And then, for him to oppose a renewal may conflict with his father who used executive orders to implement gun control.

Don't be surprised when the president uses executive orders to renew the ban when it fails in the house.

And when he does use executive orders, be sure to vote for him because the other guy will be even worse. Just like we did his father.

After all, the "gun lobby" has nowhere else to go. What are they going to do, vote democrat? At least that is their thinking.

[Blain]

Would you be just as happy with Gore in the Whitehouse, as Bush?

Well, I know that either way it doesn't matter since all elections are fixed and whoever is there is chosen by the elites to be there. Whoever is in office has the Illuminati stamp of approval. However, I do think that the public at large would be more outraged and vocal in their opposition against Gore than they have been against Bush. The more public outrage the better. People are more complacent than I feared under Bush.

[faustulus]

Might as well ask "Why invade a soverign nation that poses no significant threat to you?" Reason doesn't apply to government officials.

[fallingblock]

Not to contribute to further drift off-topic....
Perhaps reason also does not apply to those who do not accept the reality of the success of the removal of Saddam?:)

[Blain]

Yes, but the origonal intent of the confederation of the United States was never to be that of a global police force, no?

[Shooter 2.5]

Bainx,

He said it on the Oprah show and I think he also said it during the debates.

Too bad so many gun people think their activism stops by voting once in a while and not getting more active in the process.
I was watching a liberal show on PBS and they mentioned that only 51% of the people voted in the last election. Too bad so many of those are politically ignorant when they do vote.

The NRA mentioned the assault weapons ban about every issue that we had to get more A rated Candidates in so they could vote the ban out.

[WilderBill]

Jim March nailed it.
I think maybe Dubya and the NRA worked out a deal. Despite the fact that they obviously don't agrre about the AWB they aren't trying to do much finger pointing in the media.
If we wake up one day and find Bush actually pushing the AWB renewal, then we need to worry.
In the meantime we need to write our congresscretters to be sure the bill never reacches his desk.

I think that is his plan.
I know it's mine.

[Sergeant Bob]

Bush Supports Ban (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.gunban/index.html)

From John King
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Posted: 11:08 PM EDT (0308 GMT)

Unlike his push for tax cuts, President Bush has had no recent public comments about an assault weapons ban that the White House says he supports.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Wednesday restated President Bush's support for renewing a ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, but the president is keeping a low profile on the issue.

Supports Ban (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5627337.htm)

Posted on Mon, Apr. 14, 2003

Gun-control debate resumes
The assault-weapons ban expires in '04, and in a surprise, Bush says he supports an extension.
By Shannon McCaffrey
Inquirer Washington Bureau

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 said.

Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a priority for the NRA. President Bush said during his 2000 presidential campaign that he supported the ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.

Excerpted from GW Bush.com (http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm)

Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips
Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia
Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors
Supports law-abiding American’s constitutional right to own guns to protect their families and home
Supports the current ban on automatic weapons
Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips
Supports voluntary safety locks
Opposes government mandated registration of all guns owned by law abiding citizens
Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000

[Shooter 2.5]

Sergeant Bob,

Looks like divide and conquor by our "friends" from CNN and the liberal press.

OK, fine. He said BEFORE the elction he would sign it.

Now let's concentrate our efforts on stopping this in Congress.

Start those phone calls and letter Tuesday morning and let's remind the White House he said he would sign the 19 weapon ban and not some expanded 2003 Assault Weapons ban.

[Monkeyleg]

At this point in time, I would guess that the following would be the scenario played out: the Feinstein/Schumer bill gets introduced in the Senate, and a companion bill is introduced in the House. The House bill gets sent to the Judiciary committee, which is chaired by Congressman Sensenbrenner (who opposes the AW ban). It never sees the light of day, and the ban expires.

All that could change, though, if the media go on a rampage as they did in the early 90's.

What's remarkable right now is that one of the most liberal members of the Senate--Russ Feingold--has said he may not support the renewal. The story can be found here (http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/may03/143219.asp). Of course, he's up for re-election in '04, and he could also just be flapping his gums for the moment.

Hastert may have been backtracking a bit because Tom Delay over-played his hand too soon and created a media ruckus.

We can't assume that the ban will go away without any action on our part, but I'm more optimistic about the sunset than I was last year.

[Justin Moore]

Bush's 'conservative' record?

Campaign Finance/Alien Sedition Act ;)
AW Ban
Signed Farm Bill
'Education Bill' with Kennedy
Patriot Act
Total Information Awareness
Supports the notion of 'gun laws' and "Project Exile"

Wow, that's pretty 'conservative' all right ;)

[Tamara]

He only beats me because he really loves me. :rolleyes:

[Justin Moore]

He only beats me because he really loves me.

Positively brilliant :D

[Partisan Ranger]

I despise the ban and I wish Bush didn't support it, but I understand the pressure he is under. Our election system, with the electoral college, means that a president or a candidate must appeal to a wide range of voters. It cuts down on extremism in the highest office of the land. The Founding Fathers thought that this would make our government more stable. And much as I'd like to see gun restrictions lifted and the income tax abolished tomorrow, I think mostly the system works.

Bush must appeal to moderates and remove as many weapons from the communist heathens as possible. So he says he 'supports' the ban. But you don't exactly see it at the top of his priority list, and you know the bill will never see the light of day in the House.

He tees off some of us 'extremists' in his base (Constitutionalists - not so extreme in my view), but he wins a lot more moderates than he loses of us.

[Kinsman]

...let's remind the White House he said he would sign the 19 weapon ban and not some expanded 2003 Assault Weapons ban.

.....so then we "only" get an extension of the much 'less evil' current ban, instead of a new, maybe worse one? No thanks. Lesser of two evils is still evil.

I drew my line. No more restrictions.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Don't be surprised when the president uses executive orders to renew the ban when it fails in the house.

There is no way for the President to renew the ban via an executive order. The only way the ban can be renewed is via legislation that has to pass both the House and Senate.

The subcommittee that hears this bill (House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security) has a majority of GOA A-rated members and an A-rated Chairman. The committee that this subcommittee reports to has an A-rated chairman and is only two votes short of an A-rated majority (include Bs and there is a solid majority plus the Chairman). The House itself has an NRA A-rated majority.

We also have the easiest legislative task possible. We don't have to pass a bill. We only have to kill it. RKBA advocates control every committee this bill will pass through in both the Senate and the House.

If we cannot kill this poor excuse for a law then RKBA is in a real bad way; because the only way this bill won't die is if we put up such a poor show of support that even our staunchest allies in the legislature are afraid to use their power to knife this ridiculous bill before it ever reaches the floor of the House.

The media is going to go no-holds barred at the people who support us. We need to support those who are fighting for us (Tom Delay R-TX), encourage those who are reticent (Dennis Hastert, Bush), and remind those who oppose us that it will cost them. This is 100% our fight to win or lose and we can win it.

As for Bush, I just got a letter from him asking for my support for his 2004 campaign. I intend to write back and explain that I will be happy to support him once A) the ban dies with no renewal or B) Bush renounces his support for it.

As far as I am concerned, Bush can say whatever he likes if that is what he needs to duck the media heat focused on him. I'll judge him like I do all politicians, not on their words but their actions. At the same time, if he takes any action to make any renewal of this bill law, he loses my vote.

[Leatherneck]

Tamara: :D

The President is, first and foremost, a businessman, as is his father. Oh sure, they're good-hearted people who at least aren't crapping all over the Whitehouse and courting silly college students; but they are not statesmen or politicians in the good sense of that term (think Adams, Mason, Jefferson. et al).

As such, they are completely clueless about how offensive some of us find the AWB. They really wouldn't understand if you caught them in a stuck elevator for five minutes and lectured them. Chances are, any one of us would be written off as a wacko.

The Presidency right now is all about thwarting potential threats to re-election: we're not one, so we have no voice in that quarter. But Congress is another matter, and we best let our voices be heard there, loud and clear!

TC
TFL Survivor

[faustulus]

With as slim of a margin as he had we should be a sticking point to his re-election, if we are not then we are the spineless ones.