N.Y.Times AWB editorial


PDA






fedlaw
July 17, 2004, 10:35 AM
"All The News That Fits, We Print"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 17, 2004
Presidents for Gun Control

Few Americans favor a return to the day when military-style assault weapons like AK-47's, Uzis and Tec-9 pistols could be manufactured and sold in this country, making them readily available for use by gangs and drug traffickers engaged in violent crime. Yet President Bush has still not made any effort to stop the 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons from expiring on Sept. 13.

Seeking to prod the White House into action, two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York, released a letter this week that was signed by Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and urged Mr. Bush to take a forceful role in rallying Congress to save the law. At a time when terrorism is a serious threat, the former presidents wrote, it is even more imperative to renew the ban, the Assault Weapons Act, and limit access to military-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

It seems doubtful that Mr. Bush will heed his predecessors' message. His zeal for fighting terrorism and crime appears not to extend to risking the wrath of pro-gun extremists who are vehemently opposed to the renewal of this proven public safety measure, even though it has led to a sharp drop in the use of assault weapons in crime. The weapons ban also has support from every major law enforcement group in the country.

To fuzz up the issue and soften his political image, Mr. Bush continues to pay lip service to backing the reauthorization of the gun restrictions, which he endorsed as a presidential candidate in 2000. In reality, he knows that he is dooming the assault weapons ban by refusing to instruct the Republican Congressional leaders to get a renewal bill to his desk, pronto.

If you enjoyed reading about "N.Y.Times AWB editorial" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bainx
July 17, 2004, 11:41 AM
NY Times....the ones who printed Gephart as Kerry VP choice.

totally credible

porciniman
July 17, 2004, 12:27 PM
"renewal of this proven public safety measure"

Proven public safety measure my a$$!!
VB

mhdishere
July 17, 2004, 12:51 PM
Bainx,
Sorry, that was the Post, which has a reputation as a conservative/republican newspaper.

Carlos
July 17, 2004, 01:20 PM
now, I'm an extremist. LOL.

They don't know the half of it. :)

VaniB.
July 17, 2004, 02:20 PM
The President has another 7 weeks of this to go. The pounding away at him will only intensify as word keeps spreading. Can he hold out, is the question.
Get real if you're response is "Well, the house will be the hold-out against exrending the AWB". If the President caves in and decides to instruct congress to pass it, IT Will PASS ! Bush is currently against it, and I emphasize "currently".

alan
July 17, 2004, 03:14 PM
As for former presidents, they like other citizens are certainly entitled to their opinions, however given that they are FORMER PRESIDENTS, their opinions are no more valid than yours or mine are. By the way, ditto for sitting presidents.

As for The NYTimes, unfortunately it continues to confuse it's own prejudices with the facts of the matter, a sad state of affairs for what once was a pretty good newspaper.

The following is a copy of my Letter To The Editor at the Times. It's very unlikely to be printed, however some might find it interesting.

Editor:

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, ex-presidents included, the NY Times, umnfortunately continues to display it's Head In The Sand Attitude re anything having to do with firearms.

The attitude displayed by the above mentioned editorial could also be described as follows: Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

mrapathy2000
July 17, 2004, 07:07 PM
The President has another 7 weeks of this to go. The pounding away at him will only intensify as word keeps spreading. Can he hold out, is the question.
Get real if you're response is "Well, the house will be the hold-out against exrending the AWB". If the President caves in and decides to instruct congress to pass it, IT Will PASS ! Bush is currently against it, and I emphasize "currently".

actually only about 2 weeks. because senate goes on vacation in august. doesnt reconvene till sept 7th, sure calender says 6th but its labor day.

getting AWB renewal through house and senate is going and going.

alan
July 17, 2004, 11:13 PM
mrapathy2000:

I could be all wrong here, but if Bush folds on renewal of the assault weapons ban, which in passing, has yet to effect, let along ban, assault weapon #1, his re-election is toast, as the saying goes.

Do you think that he has forgotten what happened to his father, and at least part of the reason for what happened happening? Perhaps, but I cannot say, so we shall have to wait and see, in the meantime creating such pressures as we can, along with fear of retribution at the voting booth.

Dave R
July 17, 2004, 11:26 PM
Few Americans favor a return to the day when military-style assault weapons like AK-47's, Uzis and Tec-9 pistols could be manufactured and sold in this country, making them readily available for use by gangs and drug traffickers engaged in violent crime.

He lost me (and his grasp on reality) on the first sentence. Gangsand drug dealers don't use those kind of weapons. Statistically, they favor used handguns.

jefnvk
July 17, 2004, 11:34 PM
Few Americans favor a return to the day when military-style assault weapons like AK-47's, Uzis and Tec-9 pistols could be manufactured and sold in this country, making them readily available for use by gangs and drug traffickers engaged in violent crime.

Or for me to use to declare war on cans or eggs or whatever other dynamic target I can find. :fire:

pittspilot
July 17, 2004, 11:41 PM
Didn't see Bush flinch much from the beating he took for skipping the NAACP function.

Somehow, I don't think Bush reads the NY Times.

VaniB.
July 18, 2004, 12:09 AM
actually only about 2 weeks. because senate goes on vacation in august. doesnt reconvene till sept 7th, sure calender says 6th but its labor day.

No, mrapathy2000.........I meant exactly "7 weeks" that I stated in my post above that the president has to cave in. I wish he only had 5 days next week and 5 days in September you are implying. You've got those two weeks, plus the entire August recess for radio, newspaper and TV to be bombarding the gullible population of what danger lurks if Bush doesn't change his mind and renew the AWB.

There is a small possibility, that Bush COULD cave in to the pressure in the next 6 or 7 weeks, and order the AWB renewed in the 5 remaining days he will have in September when the Senate returns. If he really wanted it in 5 days, he could get it. In fact, he could have them stay overnight into Saturday morning, or call a special session if need be! We have seen poloticians stepping down from pressure in less time then 5 days! Remember Trent Lott? What's to say that Bush couldn't be made to feel the same intense pressure and guilt as they inflicted on Trent Lott?

This seems unlikely at this time, but those 6 or 7 weeks are a long recess for crap to happen! Expect the anti's AWB pressure and hysteria to be intense from here on in. He's got soccer moms, expresidents and police chiefs yelling at him from everywhere. Not to mention every liberal paper and Hollywood personality. All he's got to do is be "rational" and sign it into law. Hopefully Bush will know that he can't cave in without throwing away his reelection.

ALAN,
You've got it right! I guarantee you that if he were to sign that bill he will lose the reelection on that basis alone. The only way he could survive signing it is if his polling numbers were dramatically higher for him then they are right now. Like if for example the polling showed 60%Bush/40% Kerry, he might be able to pull it off. But being within a few pecentage points of Kerry, he will definitely lose if he signs the AWB.

alan
July 18, 2004, 12:22 AM
The presidents father served just one term, and he had WON A WAR.

Of course, he had economic problems, as does his son. He also had made the mistake of crossing up gun owners, or it certainly appeared that way, which didn't help his chances for re-election much.

Media and celebrity screaming aside, soccor moms too, I suspect that the considerations above mentioned weigh on his mind. They would on mine, were I in his shoes.

VaniB.
July 18, 2004, 01:52 AM
Alan,
But you know......his dad had a Democrat congress to contend with. We've got a Repub President, Senate, and House, and they can't figure out how to look like they're in control! What losers! You can see why some guys on this site get so disgusted with the Republicans that they start talking about far fetched 3rd party nonsence.

You know... we've had a movie star for president, a wrestler and terminator for Governors. Maybe we should consider a talk show host next. Think I'd go for a Laura Ingraham or Rush Limbaugh for president. If I were really brave, I might even pull the lever for a Michael Savage if I was in the mood to see black plume mushrooms sprouting up all over the middle east! These people at least say it like it is. And so what if Limbaugh had a pill problem! Clinton was hooked on cigars! (...or was it that he had his woman hooked with cigars?)

pittspilot
July 18, 2004, 10:32 AM
"This seems unlikely at this time, but those 6 or 7 weeks are a long recess for crap to happen! Expect the anti's AWB pressure and hysteria to be intense from here on in. He's got soccer moms, expresidents and police chiefs yelling at him from everywhere. Not to mention every liberal paper and Hollywood personality. All he's got to do is be "rational" and sign it into law. Hopefully Bush will know that he can't cave in without throwing away his reelection."

I won't argue that Bush is our best friend on 2nd Amendment issues, but this president is not exactly the "caving" type.

The other thing is that most of the Democrats don't want to talk about it either. Daschle is silent, and even Pelosi make the occassional squawks. Kerry is not saying anything because he knows that it will bring his gun controller background to the fore.

And being a gun controller is a loser nowadays. I don't see it coming back. There are too many other things for Democrats and Republicans to concentrate on that provide better political gain for less risk. Neither side wants to engage in this fight in an election year.

alan
July 18, 2004, 06:05 PM
VaniB:

I do not think that the fact that the presidents father had a Democratic Congress had much to do with the fact of his 1989 firearms related executive order, or the fact of the nations economic problems. While he used the votes of gun owners to help him get elected, when push came to shove, even in the slightest degree, he showed his true colors. If memory serves, George the First was once a congressman from Houston. He voted for the Gun Control Act of 1968, and was the only member of the Texas congressional delegation to so vote, which might be why he never made it to the U.S. Senate. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in this.

For whatever it might be worth, even with the poor creatures put forth under the ageis of the Democrats or the Republicans, seems to me that they should be able to do better, I doubt that a 3rd party candidate would fly in this country, though I've been wrong before.

As to what the current Bush will ultimately do vis-a-vis the assault weapons ban, which was a complete phoney to begin with, we shall have to see how far the apple fell from the tree.

By the bye, if you look at page 91, the August issue of American Rifleman, you will find some interesting comments on existing legislation, and what the "sunset" of the AW ban will and will not do. We, that is our side has a number of other fish to fry.

El Rojo
July 19, 2004, 08:31 PM
I am going to write Bush another letter right now and tell him that if he signs a new AWB before the election, he is done. I will do everything in my power to teach him a lesson. So if he doesn't want to sign something he said he would, he better make sure it doesn't get to his desk.

Now, that is what I am going to tell him. Reality is I live in the PRK and most likely we are going to give our 50+ votes to Kerry regardless. Also, I don't know if I could cut off my nose to spite my face. Dubya doesn't need to know that right now though.

Everyone e-mail him again. president@whitehouse.gov

Here is my letter.

Good evening Mr. President,

I just wanted to write you a quick letter to remind you of the dire consequences for your political career should you sign any legislation creating a new or extending an old assault weapons ban (AWB). I know you said you would sign one in 2000. You said what you had to say to get elected. I don't like that, but it is reality. Make no mistake about it sir, if the AWB makes it to your desk and you sign it, you will lose in November. The gun community by and large will not support you. You need us and the vast majority of the firearms community supports you and would much rather see you four more years. Do what you have to do to make sure an AWB does not reach your desk. I know I don't have to explain to you that the vast majority of gun owning Americans are good, law abiding people. The AWB does not affect gang bangers, terrorists, or other criminals. It affects retired military personal who enjoy shooting national match highpower. It affects fathers and sons who practice marksmanship together. It affects law abiding citizens who can handle the responsiblity of owning firearms. We will continue to pray for your courage and guidance as you set about your challenge of leading this great nation. Please don't let us down.

God Bless,

El Rojo

alan
July 19, 2004, 11:16 PM
El Rojo:

A nicely penned thought.

Of courase, you realize that "W" will never actually see any of the snail mail, faxes or e-mails that us mere mortals, members of the great unwashed might send, though in this, he is likely ni worse than any that came before him, that's just the way the thing is.

One can hope that he, at least gets a tally, from "the lower depths, where toil other mere mortals.

El Rojo
July 20, 2004, 12:02 AM
I realize it is just a number in the "sunset column". I would rather spend a few minutes writing him now than voting against him in November.

If you enjoyed reading about "N.Y.Times AWB editorial" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!