Dustind,
When the republicans hear from us, and find out how such a large number of people feel about the president's stance, they will have a good hint as to what will happen. And after the fact, what happened.
The parties have demographic breakdowns of states and groups. I doubt many of the so called "soccer moms" voted for Bush anyway. They like a big spender and in 2000 we didn't know Bush was going to be such a big government, big spender.
I live in Tennessee. Bill Frist is up for reelection just like Bush. When Frist gets (trivial numbers to make a point) 1 million votes in the state, and Bush gets 800,000, it will turn their heads. There is no real reason why a voter would vote for Frist and against Bush: except that TN is a pro gun state, and Bush is an anti gun president.
It is a point we don't have to prove, they will figure it out for themselves. We have been raising cain since the Bush position was revealed. Any shortage of votes or support for Bush will be blamed on him alienating gun owners. The people he is trying to appeal to, won't come over to his side. They will vote against him just like we voted against Gore. It was a pitiful tactic for him to employ. The anti gun stance of Bush may cause him to lose the entire South. In that situation, there will be only one possible reason; Bush is an anti gunner.
In the post election analysis, there will be blame put somewhere. The one group that Bush should be able to count on has repeatedly threatened to withhold their support. When they start connecting the dots, it will be gun owners that will be credited as deserting Bush.
Gun owners are credited for the republican majority in Congress and for getting Bush elected in 2000, among other things. The Democrats are running away from gun control as a core issue.
So any shortage of votes for Bush, when he is so popular and has high approval ratings, will have to be blamed on his position for the renewal. It will be the only reason for any dissension within his base.
So, we really don't have to prove it, they will assume it. We just need to see to it that Bush doesn't get our votes.
FWIW: I think our nation is somewhat evenly divided between the "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots" are those that look to government to take from the "haves" and give to them. Every year the "have not" group gets bigger. The election in 2000 showed just how evenly divided the nations is. I don't think that those numbers will change much in 2004. The same people that crave big government will vote against Bush, and the same people that despise big government will vote for Bush. I just don't think his war time popularity will hold up (like his father) when he starts getting attacked by the media and several Democrats seeking the nomination.
He may pick up a few "have not" votes because he has proven himself to love big spending and big government. But why would a "have not" take a chance on an imitation, when they could have the real thing?
So, the gun vote will be crucial in 2004 because the margin will be just as tight as it was in 2000. The Bush Campaign is too stupid to realize it.
Now is the time for us to flex our muscle, with a minimum risk (we still have Congress) with the greater of the two evils.