Awb 2


PDA






chas_martel
June 8, 2004, 12:35 PM
OK,

I've been the unpopular guy, telling everyone that we will
have AWB 2 ready to go the day AWB 1 expires.

Here is what I think will happen.

Remember the fight a few months ago where the Lawsuit protection
bill was saddled down with AWB 2 stuff.

Well, we are gonna end up with AWB 2 but no lawsuit protection for
manufactures.

Yep, all you nay-sayers can start bashing me, but my line of reasoning
purely driven by the fact "we" seem to always get the short end of the stick.

Seems like antiAmerican 's are bound to get their way. We represent
such a small percentage of Americans the politico's will never listen to us.

Chas,

PS: I sure am glad I have butt loads of NIW M16 mags................

If you enjoyed reading about "Awb 2" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ktulu
June 8, 2004, 12:41 PM
We represent such a small percentage of Americans the politico's will never listen to us.

By your reasoning no state would ever go from no CCW or may issue to shall issue.

Lone_Gunman
June 8, 2004, 12:51 PM
I will believe the AWB will sunset when I see it.

And I don't expect it to stay gone for long.

It will be attached to some piece of "essential" legislation next term, and Bush will sign it then, and at that point it will have no impact on his political career.

When it happens, all the Bush people will need to kick themselves in their hiney.

grnzbra
June 8, 2004, 01:03 PM
What they will need to do then is get very active in politics. In primaries, make damned sure that the candidates that are put up are pro-2A to the point that when the Democrat opponant hints at "blood in the streets", the Republican will come down on him with both feet and stomp him into a greazy little memory on the ground, unlike Schundler did in PRNJ (after a lot of work by the shooters to beat out the old guard Republican that the party wanted to run).

As soon as the election is over in Nov, no matter who wins and no matter the status or AWB, we must start planning for '08 while still working at all the "little" elections that will come and go in the meantime! Are we up to the job? Sadly, after 35 years of this, I'm not encouraged by what I see.

Brett Bellmore
June 8, 2004, 01:23 PM
If it will be coming back, it will be in the lame duck session. Maximum amount of time for us to get over it before the next election, and a President who's on record as wanting to sign it, and who, one way or the other, will never have to face the voters again. Even Kerry, in 2005, would have to think twice about signing it, but as of Nov. 3rd, Bush becomes untouchable.

And, yes, no matter what happens, we have to organize for 2008, so that we don't get stuck again with an anti-gun Republican candidate. Pick some state governor who's pro-gun, maybe, and build up an unbeatable machine for the primaries. Few enough people vote in primaries and caucuses that we DO have the numbers to decide who wins them, if we mobilize.

chas_martel
June 8, 2004, 01:41 PM
>By your reasoning no state would ever go from no CCW or may issue to shall issue.

I don't see CCW as a "good" step. I carried for years without a CHL. Yes,
illegally.

That being said, I do participate in the corruption of our system, as I am
a Texas CHL instructor.

I also, think we are loosing, have you noticed hthe perception of gunowners.
It is at an all-time low.

Thumper
June 8, 2004, 02:48 PM
Dude, if you think we're losing now, you weren't paying close enough attention in the early to mid '90s.

Politically, the current trend is nirvana compared to '93-'95.

WonderNine
June 8, 2004, 02:57 PM
Well, we are gonna end up with AWB 2 but no lawsuit protection for
manufactures.

Yep, all you nay-sayers can start bashing me, but my line of reasoning
purely driven by the fact "we" seem to always get the short end of the stick.

Before we start snatching defeat from the hands of victory here, I think it's important to take a look at where we are on the issue. The anti's at this point in time don't have the political muscle to get an AWB renewal through the House and maybe not even the Senate. And the thing is that regardless of what he said in the election campaign last time around, Shrub knows that if he signed an AWB renewal that it's as good as handing the keys to the front door of the White House over to sKerry.

Lone_Gunman
June 8, 2004, 06:17 PM
Shrub knows that if he signed an AWB renewal that it's as good as handing the keys to the front door of the White House over to sKerry.

Not if he signs it after the election.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 8, 2004, 06:35 PM
Not if he signs it after the election.

So just out of curiousity, what is the motivation for the Republican President to sign legislation that is opposed by every gun-rights group out there? He wants to annoy that sector of grass-roots and industry lobbying groups that is currently spending 85% of all the money they raise in support of the Republican party?

fjolnirsson
June 8, 2004, 06:35 PM
How about some activism?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1048989#post1048989

It's building.....

Here's a chance for us to do something. Still in the organizational stages as yet.

Standing Wolf
June 8, 2004, 07:07 PM
We represent such a small percentage of Americans the politico's will never listen to us.

Actually, we're the majority—but our elected misrepresentatives still refuse to listen to us.

Foreign Devil
June 8, 2004, 07:13 PM
Has anybody seen the latest AWB ad running on CNN portraying assault weapons as cop killers?

N3rday
June 8, 2004, 07:19 PM
We represent such a small percentage of Americans the politico's will never listen to us

60,000,000 is a small percentage? That's a good 1/4 or 1/5 of the country.

Coronach
June 8, 2004, 11:37 PM
Not if he signs it after the election.

Actually, once the election is done the requisite 'move to the center' for both parties will be over, and the usual 'partisan politics' will become the norm. Of course, this does not mean that we couldn't be sold out in a vote-swapping deal ("I won't veto the AWB if you play nice with my budget"), but by that point the two major pressures to sign a renewal (looking 'centrist' for the election and trying to prevent blood in the streets when the existing ban expires) would be well past.

This thing will be fought between now and November.

Mike

rick_reno
June 9, 2004, 12:19 AM
I'm pretty confident Bush will win the White House. I'm less sure about Congress remaining in Republican hands. Two recent special elections, both held in solid Republican districts (Kentucky and South Dakota) Democrats took both races. It's looking like Bush doesn't have the coattails to pull Republicans along, at the grassroot level discontent with his polices are impacting elections.
If either the Senate or the House gets close or goes over the edge to a Democratic majority - Herr Shrub could end up with all sorts of legislation on his desk that folks here don't like and I'm positive he'll sign the majority of it. He hasn't seen a bill he didn't like yet.

Waitone
June 9, 2004, 05:35 PM
Lone_Gunman has it right. AWB II will be signed by Dubya after re-election. In his second term we will see his true domestic policy leanings. Even facing re-election the guy does things that leave non-statists shaking their heads.

I personally think the guy is a 60's classical democrat like a Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson, or Hubert Humphrey. . . . . all dolled up in a conservative republican suit. He has repeatedly shown gun control or gun rights is a hill he will not die on. Neither is he willing to die on the free speech hill, nor the fiscal restrain hill, nor the illegal immigration hill, nor . . . . . . . just don't have the time to keep going.

Once again the second amendment philosophy is a real good indicator or overall political philosophy.

chas_martel
June 9, 2004, 06:50 PM
Unfortunately Waitone is right on the money...........

Foreign Devil
June 9, 2004, 08:37 PM
If I'm not mistaken Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey supported the 2nd amendment (no I don't mean hunting either). Actually I'm fairly sure Hubert Humphrey supported the right to bear arms and was quoted as saying as much.

rick_reno
June 9, 2004, 08:55 PM
If I'm not mistaken Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey supported the 2nd amendment (no I don't mean hunting either). Actually I'm fairly sure Hubert Humphrey supported the right to bear arms and was quoted as saying as much.

Wake up and smell the roses - THEY ALL SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT. It's the interpretation that gives them all the wiggle room. They'll continue to support it after the jack booted thugs knock on your door and demand your guns.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 9, 2004, 11:11 PM
I keep seeing people posit that Bush will sign a renewal in his next term and yet I see no actual evidence or arguments from these people supporting that theory.

Can anyone of the three people expressing support for this idea offer some shred of evidence to support it?

As much as some might consider gun ownership a pessimistic act in and of itself; there are people here who would consider it an ominous omen if the sun rose in the morning.

Waitone
June 9, 2004, 11:24 PM
Bush is president because his oppostion po'd the gun rights groups. None other than former president Clinton said gun rights groups put Bush in the office.

Two, Bush has demonstrated no love for or even recognition of the supremacy of the constitution in the crafting of legislation.

Three, Bush repeatedly told congress what he wanted in a campaign finance reform bill. He wrote a letter giving them 7 specific provisions the legislation would have to contain to merit his signature. Congress gave him Campaign Finance Control legislation which contained not one, I repeat, not one of the provisions he demanded. He signed the legislation with the expectation the supreme court would strike down unconstitutional law. He and every other idiot in the legislature was surprised by SCOTUS' response. He is now being hung with the rope which he refused cut up. No sympathy here.

Four, Bush dogged through congress a Medicare drug bill. Insteading of demanding congress give him something that deals with a problem he let congress send him a christmas tree of outrageous cost. Never mind the constitutional issues since he ain't worried.

Conclusion--there is plenty of reason to think Bush will sign AWB II after his re-election.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Apart from the war on islamofascist terrormongers we are looking at the weakest president in my lifetime. The man has no discernable beliefs for which he is willing to stand. The issue is the accumulation of power. . . . .pure and simple.

Lone_Gunman
June 10, 2004, 12:35 AM
Waitone, I think we are seeing eye to eye on Bush, and I agree with you totally.

He has signed legislation that he said he thought was probably unconstitutional (campaign finance reform). How he can do that is beyond me. If he thought it was unconstitutional, then how can he sign it? Good God, he took an oath to defend the Constitution, and then does this?

That issue alone is enough to scare the heck out of me when it comes to Bush. It tells me where his concern is, and it is not with the Constitution.

Don't even get me started about the Medicare Reform Bill.

We are in bad shape when a Republican starts making the "Great Society" Democrats of the 60's look conservative. No president since LBJ has been able to accomplish so much liberal agenda as Bush.

Yet the conservatives cling to the "lesser of two evils" argument like grim death. That argument got us into the mess we are in now, and certainly won't get us out.

I don't have much problem with anything he has done in terms of foreign affairs. I think getting Saddam out of Iraq was a good, weapons of mass destruction be damned. His domestic policies though are just plain horrible.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 10, 2004, 10:25 AM
Waitone, you are essentially saying that if the legislation gets to his desk he'll sign it - which is pretty much what President Bush has said on the issue.

For all that though, it hasn't ever made it to his desk, What makes you think something is going to change that after the election?

1) Four of the Senators who voted against us in March are retiring from pro-gun southern states. Several other Senators who voted against us are in tight races for reelection. Four more pro-gun Senators changes the March vote from 52-47 to 48-51.

2) The implication to your statements is that Bush kowtows to the left to try and gain their votes. What happens when he doesn't need their votes anymore (he can't be elected and Cheney isn't likely to run on his coattails)? You propose that he will continue to do the same thing; but why would he?

Ktulu
June 10, 2004, 11:13 AM
I don't see CCW as a "good" step.

Chas, I understand but for now I'll take a permited right over a denied one.

Waitone
June 10, 2004, 11:52 AM
Bush couldn't care less what media, political opponents, and foreign populations think of him (admirable quality). He will be in a legacy hunt beginning with a second term. Foreign side of his legacy will be a "democratic" Iraq.

The domestic component will be republican dominance of fed.gov. He will make policy and implement decisions based on what is good for ongoing republican control. If he thinks it necessary to jettison a "conservative" principal to position the republicans for 2008, he will do it.

AWB II is a llikely candidate particularly if it is combined with other "essential" legislation such as renewal of the Patriot Act. Or with continued appropriations for Iraqi rebuild. Any number of initiatives can be used as a hook on to which is hung AWB II.

His Christmas announcement of his illegal immigrants policy just before his meeting with V Fox should send a chill down the spine of anyone who holds to constitutional restrictions on government. His policy is right out of the works of Lenin. He instantaneously made a bad situation worse by saying, "Come on before we close the border." Never mind he has huge opposition to amnesty (which was the reality of his propposal). He made the pronouncement right in the face of his own base.

Now shift that policy discussion to post 2004 election. Bush is sucking up to illegals because of the planned voter fraud they and democrats are planning. Both side want the illegal vote. There is now by definition political will to offer amnesty to illegals. Why? becasue Bush thinks he can pull the illegal vote into the republican column.

Bush's domestic legacy hunt is a serious threat to RKBA. The only way to deflect the forthcoming weenie is to crawl into his face and those of his party and explain in a forthright and unambigious manner we will not tolerate a sell out for political purposes. My view is Bush is that he considers the constitution and bill of rights as a pile of poker chips he can use in playing government poker. He will bet the second amendment just like he bet part of the first amendment.

I do not trust the man.

rick_reno
June 10, 2004, 11:56 AM
For all that though, it hasn't ever made it to his desk, What makes you think something is going to change that after the election?

The clearest indication we have on what might change in Congress are the two special elections recently held in what were solid Republican districts in the states of Kentucky and South Dakota - and both went to Democrats. While it's early in the election cycle, it's looking like Bush might not have any coattails for Republicans to ride and their control of Congress could switch to the Democrats. His policies and lack of leadership is being felt at the grassroots level, and that has many Republicans very worried. If Congress changes hands, he would end up with lots of legislation on his desk that the chest thumping/touch typists that frequent this board might find objectionable.

I have no doubt Bush will win the general election in Nov. - the makeup of Congress is up in the air.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 10, 2004, 01:11 PM
Waitone:
The domestic component will be republican dominance of fed.gov. He will make policy and implement decisions based on what is good for ongoing republican control.

OK, we agree on this; but I see this as a positive for us. Why do you see it as a negative? You want Republican support for gun rights (or any rights for that matter)? Show them in 2004 that you can deliver votes for them. Both the Democrats and Republicans now accept it as fact that the Republicans are winning elections because of gunowners... we need to re-emphasize that every chance we get.

rick_reno:
The clearest indication we have on what might change in Congress are the two special elections recently held in what were solid Republican districts in the states of Kentucky and South Dakota - and both went to Democrats.

OK, first of all the special election in South Dakota happened when the current Republican representative had to resign due to a manslaughter conviction - so right out of the box, not a good start for the Republican party. The Democrat had run against Jankow and lost in 2002 - so she still had good name recognition. The Republican candidate was one nobody had ever hear of - he started 30 points behind Herseth and lost by fewer than 3,000 votes ultimately.

Add to that, Herseth only holds the office until the general election in November and I've got to question why you consider this a negative example?

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/06/02_hetlandc_sdspecelec/

In Kentucky, Chandler (the Dem who won) has a father who was twice-governor, had been in state politics for 12 years, had just ran for Governor and lost (name-recognition) and won in a district that is 60% Democrat by registration against an obscure state senator. Add to that, he basically won by running as a Republican in policy.

"A strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, Ben Chandler has earned an "A" rating from the NRA. In Congress, Chandler will defend the rights of central Kentucky's sportsmen by opposing new gun control laws."

http://www.chandlerforcongress.org/issues_chandlerplan.html

Basically, I think you are drawing some awful broad conclusions from a non-representative sample of two - and some of them (like the election of Chandler for example) are actually positive things for gun owners.

rick_reno
June 10, 2004, 02:22 PM
Basically, I think you are drawing some awful broad conclusions from a non-representative sample of two

Those are only two we have to draw ANY conclusions from - and given that I'd have to say they are representative. Democrats are very excited about the results of these two races - ask one of them if you don't believe me.

Whatever happens, it'll be an interesting election.

Bainx
June 10, 2004, 03:34 PM
Chas--
You still have not told us how this is going to happen.
Is it going to materialize out of thin air?

Waitone
June 10, 2004, 04:01 PM
Democrats are very excited about the results of these two races - ask one of them if you don't believe me.A drowning man is highly enthusiastic over the anvil which someone threw him. Not so enthusiastic upon calmer reflection.

Democrats are not in good shape for taking control of anything in 2005. Matter of fact Bush is facing a rebellion in his own ranks over the morphing of the republican party into ???????????

If you enjoyed reading about "Awb 2" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!