What was George H Bush's Executive Order?


PDA






Golden_006
December 30, 2009, 03:13 PM
I was reading about the Bloomberg proposal which he would like to pretty much ban everything imported for military purposes since that's what G H Bush's executuve order did(?) What exactly was it? I can't find the specifics anywhere.

Incidentally the report also claims that the GOA (?) report said something like 29% of imported arms to Mexico's drug gangs were from the US? Are they just making stuff up at this point; I can't find anything with google to verify any of this stuff.

If you enjoyed reading about "What was George H Bush's Executive Order?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
douglasmorris99
December 30, 2009, 03:25 PM
my understanding and best recollection is only 17% of the guns found in raids in Mexico come from the USA

I can assume the majority were stolen or straw-man purchases..
I dont know what GWB signed, sorry

mljdeckard
December 30, 2009, 03:30 PM
I don't know where to find the Bush XO either.

The guns identified in those raids were selected only because they were the ones that the Mexicans thought could be identified AT ALL. They didn't even submit any guns which they reasonably believed were from Africa, China, the former Soviet Union, etc. They didn't submit the ones the already knew DIDN'T come from the U.S. .

Harvey
December 30, 2009, 04:46 PM
Last Summer, according to Hillary, "Mexico's drug killings are due to American gun laws". That balloon of hers didn't float very well, but we'll still need to keep on eye on her.

divemedic
December 30, 2009, 07:30 PM
George H Bush signed an executive order in 1989 banning the importation of semiautomatic rifles that had certain characteristics. That ban was the precursor to the AWB from the Clinton era. The Bushes were almost as bad for gun owners as the Clintons.

308win
December 30, 2009, 07:39 PM
George H Bush signed an executive order in 1989 banning the importation of semiautomatic rifles that had certain characteristics. That ban was the precursor to the AWB from the Clinton era. The Bushes were almost as bad for gun owners as the Clintons.
Neither cabal trusts the commoners.

StarDust1
December 30, 2009, 07:53 PM
George H Bush signed an executive order in 1989 banning the importation of semiautomatic rifles that had certain characteristics. That ban was the precursor to the AWB from the Clinton era. The Bushes were almost as bad for gun owners as the Clintons.
GWB stated that he'd be happy to sign the AWB back into law for good, if only it could get to his desk! He was dead serious....

mljdeckard
December 30, 2009, 08:07 PM
How do you know how serious he was? The popular consensus here is that he said it knowing it would never GET to his desk. That isn't good, but it's not as bad as an administration that actively SEEKS to make sure that it DOES make it to the president's desk to get signed.

Folks, If you're waiting for the perfect candidate, you will be waiting for a long time.

divemedic
December 30, 2009, 08:13 PM
That isn't good, but it's not as bad as an administration that actively SEEKS to make sure that it DOES make it to the president's desk to get signed.

Folks, If you're waiting for the perfect candidate, you will be waiting for a long time.

Ah yes, the very popular, "Vote for me, because at least I am not as bad as the other guy."

sophijo
December 30, 2009, 08:15 PM
George Who? :)

mljdeckard
December 30, 2009, 08:15 PM
That is the ONLY game in politics. It is ALWAYS the least worst choice.

mp510
December 30, 2009, 08:17 PM
GWB stated that he'd be happy to sign the AWB back into law for good, if only it could get to his desk! He was dead serious....
IIRC, he also said that he didn't want it to come to his desk- kind of like playing both sides of the aisle. As much as we like to consider W a rogue who could care less about others' opinions, the AWB was one of those issues that he would have given the people (through their reps) what they wanted. At least he openly advocated for some favorable gun legislation- both as governor and president.

As bad as HW was, we could have done worse. While he wasn'ta 2A die-hard, he didn't push for a full AWB. Rather, he implemented a protectionist import revgulation (whcih some in the firearms industry supported, because it eliminated some cheap competition). HW was known to carry for personal protection and hunt. He may even have been an NRA lifer at one point.

We have gotten to a point where the argument no longer is right v. no right. We argue now about semantics and particularities (like AWBs and the like). That's favorable progress.

wishin
December 30, 2009, 10:11 PM
Here's some excellent background material on the "1989 Assault Weapons Scare" and President Bush's involvement in the form of his Administration's "Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1989" :

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n8_v34/ai_7903609/

Dokkalfar
December 31, 2009, 03:25 PM
As to the US's contribution to Mexican guns, here's the Fox story on that:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

Basically Mexico only submitted firearms they thought could be traced to the US... and of those, most were probably government-sold ones that Mexican soldiers sold after deserting the military. Besides, if anyone knows where to find all those AKs and full automatic rifles here in the US, I would love to know where you can buy them.

Autolycus
January 1, 2010, 02:42 AM
Bush and Reagan hate gun owners. As far as Bush carrying and double talking about signing another AWB, he was as bad as his father. The people who defend him should provide support for their statements rather than anecdotal stories. I suspect they do that simply so they can justify voting for an anti-gun candidate.

mljdeckard
January 1, 2010, 02:56 AM
Why should the burden of proof not fall on you?

JohnKSa
January 1, 2010, 03:11 AM
Why should the burden of proof not fall on you?By the rules of polite debate, it should fall on StarDust1 since he made the initial assertion.That is the ONLY game in politics. It is ALWAYS the least worst choice.Not so. I decided I would no longer compromise and so now I vote only for candidates that perfectly represent my views.

Therefore I always vote for myself as a write-in. Anything else would compromise my principles since no one else is the perfect candidate.

Anyone else with principles will do the same and vote for themselves as a write-in.

After all, we all know it's not about who gets elected, it's all about not compromising.

Now how come there's not a sarcasm smiley? :D

mljdeckard
January 1, 2010, 03:22 AM
Ok, if you think Bush and McCain were so terrible, explain how we would be better off now if Gore and Kerry had chosen the last two Supreme Court Justices.

JohnKSa
January 1, 2010, 03:28 AM
Pardon me, my good man, but you see, I was using SARRRRCASM! :evil:

mljdeckard
January 1, 2010, 03:30 AM
I couldn't tell whom it was directed toward.

sheepdog
January 1, 2010, 03:34 AM
...as was George W...he knew it'd not make it to him...and was free to tell them he'd sign it...remember he was Governor of Texas...we take our guns seriously 'round here...he's NOT anti-gun...even though he won't go huntin' with folks named Cheney...

JohnKSa
January 1, 2010, 03:34 AM
I couldn't tell whom it was directed toward. The point being that if you won't compromise you can only really vote for yourself. There's no way another candidate could perfectly represent your views. Which means, of course, that you are exactly correct.

It's always the least worst choice.

Unless you don't care who wins--then you can write yourself in and always vote for the perfect candidate. Useless, but then that's the sort of option one leaves one's self when he refuses to compromise at all.

wishin
January 1, 2010, 11:09 AM
Ok, if you think Bush and McCain were so terrible, explain how we would be better off now if Gore and Kerry had chosen the last two Supreme Court Justices.

Off topic, but the last supreme court justice was selected by Papa Obama!

GEM
January 1, 2010, 12:44 PM
I remember Mitt Romney supporting the AWB at first because GWB did. There's no way to avoid GWB being a hypocrite on the presidential level about the issue. That Gore would have been worse is a bad argument to excuse him. If you support a basic civil right, you are not a weasel.

Gore didn't pretend to be a gun guy at the national level. He was for a bit at as a senator before his candidacy.

If you study the issue, be very clear that the upper social class and economically motivated 'conservatives' are not friends of a populist RKBA agenda. They fear it.

During the 1880's or so, companies used the armed force of the state to try to discourage labor unions. Police and military deployed against anarchists who wanted a minimum wage or 8 hr day. Shots were fired into crowds.

Some of the labor oriented newpapers argued that if workers had machine guns, the police and companies wouldn't be so able to use armed force against legitimate issues.

Today, Goldman Sachs employees applied for pistol permits to protect against a populist uprising. :what:

Many gun folks are hoodwinked by the Bushies, Romneys, etc. who just spout off on gun issues. Bush in TX, needed the issue to win - but in the WH was at best tepid on the issue. You can't say he was proactive.

It's a class issue also - yes, you can rant about liberals being antigun - but remember there's more to it. Bob Dole, Nixon - gun haters. Hubert Humphery - support of the 2nd.

Art Eatman
January 1, 2010, 01:19 PM
Way too much politics...

If you enjoyed reading about "What was George H Bush's Executive Order?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!