Suppose the president says he'll sign a bill re-instating slavery if comngress can repeal the 13th amendment & then pass it.
Now supposse that he immedietely went behind the scenes to quietly discourage congress from taking any action.
Would he be a good president or a bad one?
That's for y'all to decide. Personally I don't care for people who don't respect thier word, nor do I care for people who attempt to violate my Rights, whether it was to fufill an oath or for any other reason.
Speaking of oaths, didn't Bush (as every president before him) swear an oath to uphold & defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign & domestic?
But let me stress something else; Bush is responsible for the actions of his AG. If Bush disapproves of Ashcroft's actions then Bush can either order him to remedy the situation or replace him. The buck stops with Bush.
With that in mind, here's why Bush wouldn't get my vote even if he had remained silent on the AWB;
Ashcrogt has stated that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual Right to Arms,
subject to reasonable government restriction. Under that policy he's been pursuing several Bush approved programs: Project Exile/Safestreets/Neighborhoods. These are designed to vigorously enforce all federal firearms laws.
Lest ye forget, ALL federal firearms laws are unconstitutional. whether it be for a felon possessing a weapon, or a man making a silencer so he won't go deaf from target practice, a person who puts a post-ban "assault weapon" in a pre-ban folding stock, or the guy busted for carrying a .44 in bear country that wanders inadvertently into a national park.
So regardless of the justifications for Bush supporting the renewal of the AWB, Bush is no friend to the people as evidenced by his vigorous efforts to persecute those who exercise their Rights.
Another thing - after September the 11th what hapened? People could no longer carry finger nail clippers on planes. Someone care to point out where the 2nd amendment has an exception for those traveling in fedewrally regulated conveyences? Fact is if Bush hadn't stood idly by & allowed an unconstitutional law disarm airline passengers, there's a good chance two buildings in NYC would still be there, along with 3,000 people.
So Bush has enforced laws that infringe upon our Rights, even after said victim disarmament allowed a handful of murderers with knives to take out 2 buildings & 3,000 people.
& Bush is a gun owners friend????
BTW, Bush signed a CCW bill into law in Texas. & the point? How is that a positive for gun owners? The CCW bill requires a Texan to grovel & beg the state, after paying a hefty fee, in order to exercise a natural, inherent Right that's guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Well, that's not completely true. A Right is something that is exercised
without having to grovel for permission. What Bush did is turn what should have been respected as a Right into a privilege that the poorest Texans could not afford.
Not to mention Bush asked SCOTUS to not hear two 2nd amendment court cases; one was Haney, which involved a challenge to the NFA of '34, the other was Emerson, which challenged the Lautenburg amendment.
If Bush turned around & withdrew his support of the AWB, stopped enforcing all federal gun laws, put as much pressure as possible on congress &/or the courts to repeal all federal gun control laws, & urged states to pass Vermont based carry laws, then he'd be a friend of the gun owners of this country.
As it stands now Bush is a friend of those who want "reasonable restrictions" on firearms.
As to the talk of an electable candidate - Will it really matter when your Rights are negated if it's done by someone who professes you don't have any, or if it's done by someone who claims you have them, but they're subject to the government's whims? I see no difference between the two.
Neither do I see that voting for someone who has a chance at winning is the proper way to go about things.
We've been misled that one of two parties will win for a long time. It's because of that we're in the situation we are now. We can either start throwing our weight behind candidates who we would be ashamed of if they did win, or we could try to tell our grandchildren that we voted for the lesser of two evils.
The only way to effectively change things is to throw as much voter weight as possible behind a third party. For the sake of discussion let's say the Libertarian Party (although the Constitution Party looks like they have some good ideas as well). we all vote for the Libertarians. two things will happen; Republicans may lose as most Libertarain votes will be disgruntled republicans. The other thing is that the Republican Party might understand the message; sell us out we'll boot you to the curb.
In the short term (4-12 years) this will cause Democrats to win office. In the long term it will steer the Republican Party back towards the right, or it will replace the Republican Party with the Libertarian Party as the other viable choice.
I guess what you should ask yourself is are you willing to make a short term sacrifice for a long term goal, or are you willing to give up the long term goal for some short term comfort?
But let me be clear on this: the AWB has enough votes in the House & Senate to pass. The only reason it hasn't has been because it hasn't came up for a vote. DeLay swears this won't happen (then again he said there wasn't enough votes), but Hastert is the Speaker of the House & he decides what gets voted on & what doesn't.
Hastert has said it's still possible that the AWB renewal could come up for a vote.
So don't think we're out of the woods on this yet. & don't think Bush will not actively push it. If he's enforcing it now & promises to sign it later,
damn skippy he'll use his political push to renew as a bargaining chip for something he wants.
One last thing,
the AWB passed because the Repubs, at the direction of the NRA, let is pass so they could move on & pass the Brady Bill, which both the NRA & the republicans wanted to pass.
So don't think that Bush is an exception. A lot of Republicans support gun control, they're just better about the PR than the Democrats are. & don't be fooled into thinking that it's either Bush or a Democrat to be named later. That's looking at the short term (the presidency) & not looking at the long term (forcing the Republican Party to change or be swept aside).
