They Finally touched on it (Guns)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately, Bush couldn't take the moral high ground on this question and say that the ban was unconstitutional or that it did no good since he was on record supporting it. He wouldn't stand up and say, "I was wrong to have supported it. It turns out it did no good," because he can't risk losing a single "security mom" vote.

I have been a big Bush supporter, especially on foreign policy. In these debates, he gave me nothing to cling to. At least Kerry gave me a lot to dislike about him. I hope that Bush's relentless pandering to the left is successful for him, because the alternative is much worse.

The AWB is the left's "partial birth abortion" issue. That is, they characterize it as (an the media assists them), "if you won't support this reasonable resritiction, then you want no limitations at all (i.e., nukes in your neighbor's garage)." If Amendment 2(b) read: "... and a woman's right to privacy being necessary to a free state, the right to an abortion on demand shall not be infringed," how would that be interpreted? Would goverment approval and background checks be an infringement? What about parental notification for minors? How about the government paying for it? Would it apply to the states?

Standing Wolf, do you still think that America is not stupid enough to elect Kerry?
 
Did anyone notice how adament Kerry was when he said this? He was 100% committed and passionate about getting the AWB again. Bush just said what he had to say to get the issue to go away. Bush seems he really doesn't care either way.

Kerry's a 'gun guy' yet is 100% committed to banning semi auto shotguns and hunting rifles. He noted law enforcement was for the AWB. LEO's are for anything so they can be more lazy. I know cops who say they should be able to pull you over and search your car for any reason. You are on public property (road) is their argument

Anyway, it made it more apparent the bubba duck hunters need to vote their sport for once.

Mr. Kerry: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault-weapons ban. I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid - 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment, and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment. But I'll tell you this: I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney offices in America, one of the 10 largest. I've put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting. And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47. I was hunting in Iowa last year with the sheriff of one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us and said, "See that house over there? We just did a drug bust a week earlier and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him." Because of the president's decision, today law enforcement officers will walk into a place that'll be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and without even a background check buy an assault weapon today. And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan and it encouraged them to do it. So I believe America's less safe. If Tom DeLay or someone in the House said to me, Sorry, we don't have the votes, I'd have said, Then we're going to have a fight. And I'd have taken it out to the country and I'd have had every law enforcement officer in the country visit those congressmen. We'd have won what Bill Clinton won.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Everyone, new member here...

Just wanted to include the fact that the AK-47 laying on the bed next to the drug dealer was already banned under the AWB under the time frame that he was talking about and Kerry forgot to mention this. How did the guy get the gun then?

This is just proof that new laws don't work and we just need more and stricter enforcement of the current laws!

Just had to put in my 2 cents...

Don
 
He says he won't tamper with the 2nd amendment, but you gotta consider what his interpretation of the 2nd amendment is, and that's what the real issue is with him. He doesn't quite understand or even care about the "shall not be infringed" part, he just figures that as long as we're able to own a gun, he's not violating the 2nd. Even if gun ownership gets restricted to pellet guns and muskets, we're still able to own "guns" so he'll think we're within our 2nd amendment rights.

In all honesty, I don't think they're too worried about it, because it's a waste of their time to talk about gun control. The only people that care about gun control issues (MMM group and NRA people) have already made their decision and won't be swayed one way or another. I don't expect to hear much more about gun control the rest of the campaign.
 
The big difference is, Bush was honest about his stance. Kerry was LYING about his stance. Kerry has NEVER missed an opportunty to vote WITH the ANTIs. He's got an A rating fom Handgun Control, and an F rating from the NRA.

And let's remember three significant victories happened under Bush's administration:

1) Early in his presidency, the UN had its Council on Small Arms. They wanted to pass a resolution favoring registration or banning. The (new) US rep. utterly refused, and the final resolution basically just deplored gun violence. Had the original resolutions passed, it would;ve given the antis and Liberals a great tool.

2) Ashcroft went on record that the 2A is an individual right.

3) The AWB expired.

Personally, I think NONE of those would've happened under a Gore Presidency. And I think none would happen under a Kerry Presidency.

Bush signed CCW in Texas. What has Kerry EVER done for gun owners?

Personally, I think the only reason Bush took the position he did on AWB is because he knew he would never have to sign it. It was a misguided attempt to reach undecideds.

Look at the record. Look what each has done. I can't imagine a knowledgeable gun owner voting for Kerry.

THIS YEAR Senator Kerry voted for a bill that would've banned .30-30 ammo. What would he do if he were President?
 
As already noted, the AWB ban faded away under Bush, something I suspected would happen back in 2004, no matter what GW said on the stump.

And I'll bet anyone here that, if elected, Kerry will actively push for Feinstein's "new and improved" semiauto ban.

Bill Clinton pushed for the AWB ban at a time when the public had been whipped into a lather over the issue (gee, thanks, Josh Sugarman and Sarah Brady). Today I don't think the ban is in the top 50 of issues the public is concerned about. Yet Kerry persists. What does that tell you?
 
"I will not tamper with the Second Amendment." Well, shucks, John, that's right neighborly of you, considering the fact that a president doesn't have the power to tamper with the Constitution in the first place. What a president DOES have the power to do, however, subject to Senate approval, is to appoint Supreme Court justices who will decide what the Second Amendment means, which is simply not clear today. And based on your record, John, I have no doubt that you will try to ensure that your appointees will be consistent with your own record on this issue.

The other thing that bugs me about this is that the AWB was probably 90% symbolic and 10% practical. I mean, reference the drug dealer with the AK-47. Under the AWB, the drug dealer could still easily buy what is commonly referred to as an AK-47, meaning a high-cap clone. And high-cap mags cost about $10. Without the AWB, the same drug dealer can now buy exactly the same gun with a collapsible stock or flash suppressor. Wow, I can see why the cops would sleep better, because they were so much safer before. Oh yeah, and Mr. Dealer could have legally had it all, even with the ban, by spending a few more dollars and getting a pre-ban. My point is that Kerry's implied claim that Bush made us all less safe by allowing the AWB to lapse is laughable and ignorant on several levels. Bush may or may not be equally ignorant on the issue, but at least he wasn't pushing it, as Kerry undoubtedly would. And finally, if Kerry does get elected and he pushes for a new AWB, let's just fight it like crazy and it will be our little secret that it really doesn't make that much difference in the first place. The real worry is that he would push for some truly meaningful legislation.
 
I keep reading the 2nd Amendment, but no matter how many time I go over it, I can't find a darn thing about hunting, hunters, or sportsmen. I do see something about the "security of a free state", a little bit about the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and some tag line about something that "shall not be infringed." However, I cannot find any reference to hunting. Why do you suppose that is? :scrutiny:
 
Neither candidate's stance on the Second Amenment have endeared themselves to me...

Kerry has a spotless record of voting for every gun control measure that has come to the floor in his career....

Bush supported the AWB & has a history of signing bills into law that even he will admit to being unconstitutional (remember Campaign Finance Reform?)...

For a better alternative, see my sig...
 
I've said it once, I'l say it again, and I'll probably believe it until the day I die:

WE WERE NEVER MEANT TO HAVE CAREER POLITICIANS!!

That is what is killing this country more than anything, regardless of what side you are on. You have people on both sides who will do or say anything to KEEP THEIR JOB. They should be doing or saying anything to PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!

I say that all political offices should have term limits, period.
 
We can cry in our beer here all we want about John Kerry. The fact of the matter is that "Elmer Fudd" believes that Kerry is pro Second Amendment. Kerry and his ilk keep on getting elected. Didn't someone say that if you speak a big lie long enough, the weak minded will begin to belive it.....
 
I'm NOT a one-issue voter, but if we get Kerry, we get the ban back, in worse form. Count on it.
 
<~~~~ not a one issue voter either -

but that man scares me! (Kerry) We all expect Poli's to lie - its thier job... but he can't even decide on a lie... No matter what the subject.

rofl

I guess that his anti-gun stance has been pretty dependable... but then again - he's a hunter who owns guns ya know.... (sigh)

I love his healthcare plan - from what i've heard/read - it will effect maybe ... 3% of the population. And it SURE AS HECK ain't gonna be a boon for poor people. At least if you consider the 7 thousand dollar a year check you'd have to write for that coverage.

I don't know that i'd want a national healthcare plan. Lived in the UK for 2 years and didn't much care for thier system.

They say the costs of Bush's push to cap liability won't work - but i have to wonder - how its 1% of total medical spending if there are doctors LEAVING poorer area's because they are affraid that the poorer people will see quick dollar signs and sue at a drop of a hat?!?! (forget - newsweek, time, us news - one of those papers/mags) Or docs that charge a lot to pay for the "what if X% sue me - the insurance company will charge me <blank>" Or the hospitals... since maybe the doc ain't got the army of one insurance coverage... they get sued. (ever wonder why a SINGLE que tip costs so much? I guarantee you that one can buy anything they "use" on ya for much less than they charge. well anything not specialized)

I'll give that the cost of research costs a lot - but it boils down to what happens if i get sued in this litigous (sp?) society? Not just once - but by many people. I look at Viox and wonder how any company stays in business... after however much in research, in getting the drug to pass all the FDA's tests etc.... to find out later that it might be a lil more dangerous than it seemed to be... and BLAM - advertisments for lawyers (multiples) asking "have you taken viox? Heck one of em even went as far to proclaim "you are our first priority" (Nothing lights a lawyers eyes like "class action")

So - be interesting what the "cost of health care" is after you figure in...
1. I hope nothing happens
2. Oh crud something happened
3. Dang - how many are suing?
4. They are suing the hospital too?!??!
5. AND the drug company?
6. AND the doc?
7. AND the company that made the quetip that was used?!?!? (hehehe it seems this rediculous yes)
8. WOW those lawyers are gonna cost a lot.
9. Well i could either spend X amount of money defending myself - or y(less) amount of money by settling.
10. Lawyers swim around a bit longer waiting for #2 again.

OH and don't forget number 11.....

11. People who know that suing someone for something "works" and is good for a paycheck they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Add it all together its a vicious cycle that drives costs sky hi- Once they know company A will settle for X - then MAYBE comany B will settle for Y (higher) now insurance company A doesn't like having to pay that much and they don't want to go out of business (business: making money is NO. 1) They charge more and attempt to minimize risk/maximise profits.

But hey - instead of trying to stop greedy lawyers from getting money from greedy insurance companies - who in turn charge fee's to ANYONE to "cover them - but we sure hope you don't need the coverage... really" who then are SOME people who say - "hey, maybe i can get 500 thousand bucks - thats more than i've made in the last 20 years of hard work"

heh evil cycle i tell ya.

J/Tharg! (sorry i prattled on so long... rofl... once i start going... rofl)
 
Snakes wiggle,

Dogs bark.

Cats hork up hariballs.

Kerry lies. What is so hard to understand?

Bush's response may have been politically correct, but it sucked from the standpoint of leadership. What the hell is wrong with a "leader" saying about the AWB, "It was bad law made under bad assumptions. It is ineffectual, cosmetic, and technically incorrect. It should have never been enacted and I'll not compound the original mistake by advocating is renewal."

Explain how any one politican can be driven by principal on foreign policy but have no evidence of any principal on domestic policy. Bush is his own contradiction.
 
Last edited:
Wait -

I ask you.

How many anti's have you posed that same line to?

How many of em either looked at you stupidly, or worse, argued with you? Usually w/ the same argument - we got those guns off the streets and we are safer!!! Now imagine you only have time to tell them that line - and don't get an opportunity to actually argue/debate with them.

Now assume you are running for president and ANY one liner WILL be used against you many many times. (ask either candidate...)

Do you try to strike the middle, or do you stick to yer guns (so to say) and render yourself obsolete and lose.

Some people DO vote that way - "he said X - no way i'm voting for him" Most (i hope) of us try to read past the delecate wording, the intricate policy, and vote for the person we most believe to be right for the country.

J/Tharg!
 
Hey seeker_two, I modified your sigline to make it reflect reality: "Vote for those who represent your beliefs & convictions during the primaries. For the General Election, vote for the electable candidate who best represents them."
 
There is no redeeming value for Kerry on 2nd Amend. issues. He will pretend to be a 'sportsman' and allow the rich to shoot skeet. Everything else goes. If you vote for Kerry, it is because Bush is not a good president except for his tepid record on the RKBA.

Bush really isn't committed to the RKBA. I doubt he understands the need for the RKBA as a protection against tyranny and for self-defense. His position will be that of political expediency as explained to him by his advisors. Such advisors don't care either about the issue - it is all about the election.

We are lucky that it was seen that it was to his benefit to say he would sign the ban but then do nothing about it. Pure politics without a strong moral stance.
 
His position will be that of political expediency as explained to him by his advisors. Such advisors don't care either about the issue - it is all about the election.
Click to expand...

I have worked in the bowels of politics for some time, and I can tell you this is true. It is all about winning, it has nothing to do with ideology. The presidency is the most powerful position in the world. It is about power, not position.

It has never been any differently in history, and it will never be any differently in the future. People who seek power seek power.

That's why you have to hold their feet to the fire... countervailing power works, and every politician needs it.
 
Kerry may be a gun owner...

...just like Feinstein's a gun owner. They want to take away your guns, not give up their own! They have bodyguards and armored limos, and no matter what legislation they pass, they'll be able to own guns, as will those protecting them. It's the height of hyprocrisy, and just what I'd expect from John "F" Kerry.

Dirty Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Weeee Gotta Love East Texas...(awb)
Replies
3
Views
796
Daedalus
D
larryw
  • Locked
American Rifleman TV
Replies
3
Views
948
Pheonix
P
E
  • Locked
Not really about guns but I would like to know.......
Replies
2
Views
433
Eric F
E
T
  • Locked
Grrrr I finally got to the end...
Replies
13
Views
938
Typhoon
T
T
  • Locked
OMG i wish i had more cash....
Replies
17
Views
1K
lwsimon
L
Back
Top